Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Entitlements are with in Congresse's and the White House's control. They created them, they can adjust them or cut them. Do whatever they want. And that was something Gringrich tried to do. Since they have the power to undo them or change them in any way they like, they should be held accountable for them when it comes to judging their fiscal prudence.
Do you really think that is unreasonable?
|
Not really. But I would suggest that they are not easy to change, and I wouldn't dismiss cuts in discretionary spending (and pay as you go) as meaningless or "fiscally irresponsible."
ETA: If you had in the first instance said, "I don't think Clinton was as fiscally responsible as he could have been because he did not do enough to curb the growth of entitlements" instead of "Clinton increased taxes and increased spending" we probably could have saved ourselve quite a few posts. But then again, what is the fun in that?
