Debt is to Surplus as Democrat is to Republican

A challenge to the liberals.... Name one state run by Democrats that has a balanced budget, let alone a surplus.

Truth is, we have spent ten years at War without increasing taxes to pay for them. That's the Republican plan to balance the budget? As we say in Texas, if it looks like #$%$ and smells like #$%$, you probably don't want to step in it.

It would seem that since 1970, we have run a deficit every year with the exception of 1999 and 2000. Since the majority of the Republican leadership has been in office for more than 10 years, I believe they have considerable ownership of deficits.

If this balanced budget amendment is such a good idea, why didn't Republicans seek it when they controlled the senate, the house, and the White House?

increasing spending habits? You mean the 4 trillion in cuts he proposed? Or do you mean the bailouts Bush started?

The real question is about timing. The time to address this problem was when the economy was doing better and we had a surplus. Instead of trying to address it we just decided the rich needed to get richer. Thats what outrages a lot of people in this country. That we have to wait until a democrat is in office to try and address this problem.

Lest we forget, it was the Republicans that turned the national surplus into a deficit and deregulated us into the financial crisis that still plagues us today. The Republicans have a very convenient way of ignoring facts in order to cater to the wealthy, the banks, the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies, and the oil companies.

Not exactly a truthful article here. I live in Iowa. Last year we had a Dem legislator and a Dem Gov.. They were responsible for the fiscal year that just ended. We were told about the "tax/spend" libs were evil. Too many drank the Kool-Aid.. They were voted out.
Of course the truth was something else entirely. We were in good fiscal shape.... and ended year in surplus.

Over the last few months Our "new" governor Terry Braindead has suggested lowering property tax for BUSINESSES while also raising taxes on gasoline.

Wow. We get what we vote for... we get what we deserve.

You left out Texas. A broke state led by republican rick perry. The state was 28 billion in the red and cut 10% of its teachers as well as 10% of state employees. This is after cutting 10% each year for the last two years. Schools are charging kids to ride the bus, play sports and band, and cutting courses. Summer schools are going or gone.

Any good economist will also point out that comparing state debt to federal debt is just silly. Debts truly hurt states. They force states to cut services. But the Federal budget is almost designed to run deficits. And let's not forget that under Reagan, the national debt increased from $900 Million to nearly $3 Trillion. The last administration to balance the budget was Clinton's.

Perhaps you should consider this facts: Reagan increased the deficit by 199% and raised the debt ceiling 18 times, George H Bush increased deficit by 48% and raised debt ceiling 9 to,es. George W. Bush increased the deficit by 90% and raised debt ceiling 7 times. In contrast Carter raised the deficit by 59% and raised the defebt ceiling 9 times, Clinton raised the deficit by 44% and the debt ceiling 4 times, thus far Obama has raised the deficit by 26% and raised the debt ceiling 3 times. I think the facts contradict your statement.

Clinton had a surplus because he stole from the social security fund just like every president since democrat lyndon Johnson, who started the raiding of the S.S. trust fund. NAFTA is a democrat idea - destroyed jobs. Sending jobs to China under Clinton was a good idea? Destroyed jobs. Democrats are great - for other countries economies.

California had a $20B+ shortfall under the Republican Governator that just left office after serving two full terms. It also has a balance budget requirement in it's state constitution, which doesn't appear to be having the pancea like effects the author of this very biased article claim for it.

I have no problem with reading reasonable conservative analysis of some of these difficult issues, but this author is either stupid or very biased. No, actually, make that stupid and very biased, because even if biased she should be able to come up with better arguments than these and not use examples that actually go against her thesis.

I'm a conservative. But why does Yahoo allow "contributor" articles at all? What a total hack job. There are plenty of social liberals who are also fiscal conservatives, among both parties. Please don't tell me I'm a Republican because I'm a fiscal conservative. Total Hogwash!

Somebody needs to inform this author that the republican leadership in the white house has been the worst for our debt. Most of our debt is due to Reagan and Bush. I guess you can blame Obama for an economic collapse that started before he was in office, but that'd be stupid. No respectable economist would suggest that the federal government should have cut spending during the great recession. We'd be eating our leather shoes.

The facts show Republicans are to deficits as Democrats are to balanced budgets. Bill Clinton = budget surplus George Bush = 4 trillion deficit. That's the facts which is probably what drives conservatives crazy.

Can we say biased.. The fact that you had to go find Governors to get your point across because the Republicans who have been in charge in Washington the last 20 over 30 years, tripled and then doubled the national debt... Republicans raised the debt ceiling 18 times by Reagan in 8 years, 9 time by Bush Sr, in 4 years, and 7 time by Bush Jr in 8 years.... Compared to Clinton who raised it 4 times in 8 years and Obama who has raised it 0 times tells the fact that it is the Republicans who cannot control themselves when it comes to spending... Matter of fact Clinton had us in the black with a surplus when he left office... So everyone really needs to read this bill very carefully as we all know without an increase in revenue, reducing spending doesn't mean a whole lot of beans when a Republican is in office...

Patricia,what you have pointed out makes sense,but a balanced budget amendment would most probably be used to gut social security payments for future retirees. I would be all for the amendment if it weren't used for this purpose (period). It's been my observation that the Rep. will use any means to take- away and add to the defense budget and and tax breaks for their buddies>the military industrial complex etc. Nuff Said For Now-....

Then there is South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley. Her budget approach has caused an odd problem for her state. It is having a terrible time trying to figure out how to spend a $210 million surplus . try giving it back to the democratic states that gave it to you like NY and California
Subtotal, Farming Subsidies in South Carolina, 2010
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 6,892

Recipients of Subtotal, Farming Subsidies from farms in South Carolina totaled $45,833,000 in in 2010.

Just a shill, taking a snapshot from recent elections, when there has been very little time to have any effect on those economies. In addition the red states (generally red) have always been takers for the last 50+ years. When Northern Unions were broken the non union red states got many of those jobs and despite cheaply paying those workers down there the big industrial corporations found that uneducated types can't do the work regardless of how little they are paid. Then those jobs were exported -- permanently (at least for a long time) along with dollars from reduced taxes on the wealthy. The rich aren't necessarily evil but in an economic sense they are generally parasitical.