Statistically, at least for the past several presidential elections, the large urban areas of the US align with the Democrats and the rural areas align with the Republicans.

If you have a state with a couple or several large cities, it's going to the Democrats, because those urban centers outweigh the rural votes; likewise, if the state is mostly rural, it's going to the Republicans.

Watching the election results county by county I'm amazed to see most of the rural areas Red (which amounts to most of a given state), the small itty-bitty but very populous cities Blue, and have the state itself turn out to be a Blue state. Very true of here in Washington, but I've noticed it with our West Coast neighbors, as well as others, too.

Yeah, yeah, "Read my lips: No New Taxes!"

There is absolutely no chance that a President would not at least be in office when taxes go up in some sector, never mind whether they have a direct hand in those taxes. And nearly every politician promises that they won't raise taxes, and then they do, and then their aides say "Oh, you know we had to say that to get in to office, but everyone knows that taxes have to go up" and so on.

So when revenues fall short, what happens? Will Obama scale back his programs? Or will the average, middle-class taxpayer like Joe the Plumber have to pick up the tab? The math just doesn't add up.

Getting us out of Iraq would be a big help, we will not leave losers, we took out Saddam and Iraq is asking us to leave, Mission accomplished!

I have these little cynical views of the world every now and again.  Among them are that government never gives back money when they are used to spending it.  I don't for a minute believe that money that would be "saved" by not being in Iraq wouldn't be re-allocated for some other government purpose.  Once Government gets a budget it never goes down.  How the Iraq dollars would be reallocated is interesting question but the government will not cut that spending* -- I just don't believe it.  Its like you or I asking for for our salaries to be cut.  Its crazy (and I know whereof I speak -- I volunteered to have for my salary to stay the same this year which did not make me too popular at home!)

*Krugman posits today that Government should go a spending spree -- I don't agree but no one's given me a nobel prize either!

Among them are that government never gives back money when they are used to spending it.  I don't for a minute believe that money that would be "saved" by not being in Iraq wouldn't be re-allocated for some other government purpose.  Once Government gets a budget it never goes down.

***************

Truer words have never been spoken, Geoff!

Getting us out of Iraq would be a big help, we will not leave losers, we took out Saddam and Iraq is asking us to leave, Mission accomplished!

******************************

Aren't we approaching the 2,000th day since that proclamation?

True, regardless of party (although traditionally, the Democrats have been responsible for more of the spending increases. At least, until the Bush administration came along.) Which is why I'm strongly opposed to new government spending. Once the government starts a new program - even one that is supposed to be temporary - it has a way of staying on the books forever.

There's so much fat in the federal budget each year. I wish someone could go through with a highlighter pen and just zero out the stuff that we don't really need.

 I wish someone could go through with a highlighter pen and just zero out the stuff that we don't really need.

I'd love it too -- but no politician likes to do that! Thats a sure fire way to be a one term congressman, senator, or president!  Both partys call for spending cuts -- its just they don't want to cut what they value!   And thus we get the bloated budget we have!

Palin on SNL this weekend.....

http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-sarahpalinsaturdaynightliv e,0,1952882.story

Ronald Reagan (one of the few politicians in American history who actually was able to cut federal spending) always wanted the President to have a line-item veto for the federal budget. That way, the President could veto the obvious pork without vetoing the entire budget. And as with any veto, Congress still would have the final say - they'd just need a two-thirds majority to override it.

I haven't heard anyone mention a line-item veto in about 20 years, but it's something I'd like to see for every President - Republican or Democrat. I bet we could save a lot of tax money that way.