Obama General Discussion, vol. 4 - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-27-2012, 02:38 PM   #166
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 09:53 PM
Voting for Republicans in 2012 is a vote for even more deficits than we have now.

#SimpleMath
__________________

__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 02:38 PM   #167
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 09:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoMac View Post
Why do you keep saying that Bush isn't running?
He can't argue the context. So he twists the logic in order to avoid it. It's what the right has been doing for decades.

If you ignore the past it won't happen again, right?
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-27-2012, 02:57 PM   #168
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Mrs. Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: pig farming in Bolivia
Posts: 7,222
Local Time: 09:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
Voting for Republicans in 2012 is a vote for even more deficits than we have now.

#SimpleMath
Clearly you are not paying attention to what Romney has said, he plans to cut programs in part to reduce the deficit. Notice i said "cut" and not "eliminate" entirely. He has said that he would repeal Obama-care. What he says & what he actually ends up doing, if elected, remains to be seen. But i doubt we end up with another $5 TRILLION in new deficits in 3 years under a Romney administration.
__________________
Mrs. Garrison is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 02:58 PM   #169
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Mrs. Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: pig farming in Bolivia
Posts: 7,222
Local Time: 09:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoMac View Post
Why do you keep saying that Bush isn't running?
Again, because people keep blaming the Obama economy on George Bush 3+ years into this Obama administration.
__________________
Mrs. Garrison is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 03:07 PM   #170
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 09:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison View Post
Again, because people keep blaming the Obama economy on George Bush 3+ years into this Obama administration.
Have you ever taken an economics class?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-27-2012, 03:26 PM   #171
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,668
Local Time: 11:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison View Post
Again, because people keep blaming the Obama economy on George Bush 3+ years into this Obama administration.
I asked that for a reason. I, once again, appeal for you to use some rational, not ideological, thought.

Hypothetically speaking, let's assume that Romney wins the election. Now imagine if, during the next election cycle in 2016, things have not exactly turned around the way Romney said they would and Democrats are calling him out on it.

Do you not see a scenario then where those on the right will say things like: "Well, after all the damage that Obama caused during his presidency, it's going to take a bit more time for things to improve."

Can you see it? Because it will happen. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm saying it's politics.
__________________

BoMac is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 03:42 PM   #172
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Mrs. Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: pig farming in Bolivia
Posts: 7,222
Local Time: 09:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoMac View Post
I asked that for a reason. I, once again, appeal for you to use some rational, not ideological, thought.

Hypothetically speaking, let's assume that Romney wins the election. Now imagine if, during the next election cycle in 2016, things have not exactly turned around the way Romney said they would and Democrats are calling him out on it.

Do you not see a scenario then where those on the right will say things like: "Well, after all the damage that Obama caused during his presidency, it's going to take a bit more time for things to improve."

Can you see it? Because it will happen. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm saying it's politics.
Of course they will be saying that, and I wont be one of them. If Romney is elected and we have similar results to where we are at now in respect to this president, then i will be looking for Romney's replacement as well.
__________________
Mrs. Garrison is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 03:42 PM   #173
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 10:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison View Post
Am I? half of the people in this country aren't even paying income tax, so who are supporting the people addicted to govt handouts? Why aren't these people weened off of welfare, unemployment, etc? Why aren't they drug tested? Oh yeah, because the economy sucks and there are no jobs....and these people will continue to vote democrat...and you and i will continue to finance their lifestyle.
You keep repeating something that makes you sound uninformed. I really can't understand why you do this because you otherwise are very articulate, well spoken and seem to have a reasonable grasp on the issues.

The famous 45% of people who don't pay federal income tax don't pay it because their income level falls below federal income taxable levels. Aside from the unemployed, they are also by and large full-time students and seniors. These are large groups who are not on welfare and for you to suggest that they should be drug tested is absurd, nevermind unconstitutional.

But if you'd like your candidate to run on a platform of mandatory drug testing for non-wealthy seniors, I would very much encourage this, as we could all pack our bags now and simply sit on our asses waiting for President Obama to ride to unprecedented victory in November.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 04:01 PM   #174
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Mrs. Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: pig farming in Bolivia
Posts: 7,222
Local Time: 09:53 PM
Fox News Poll: 45 percent approve of Obama, as 83 percent say country still in recession | Fox News

Quote:
President Barack Obama’s job approval rating remains in negative territory -- unwelcome news for an incumbent running for re-election. Even so, the president’s regained some ground from earlier this month.

While 45 percent of American voters approve of the president’s performance, a 51-percent majority disapproves, according to a Fox News poll released Wednesday. That’s a bit of an improvement from two weeks ago when 42 percent approved and 51 percent disapproved (April 9-11).

One reason the president’s job approval suffers: 83 percent of voters think the country is still in a recession -- including 35 percent who think things could get worse. That’s little changed from a year ago, when 82 percent thought the country was still in a recession (with 38 percent saying things could get worse).

Overall, 15 percent of voters believe the recession is over. That’s mostly unchanged from 16 percent last year (April 2011).

Meanwhile, the poll finds an increase in optimism over the past two years. Fifty-four percent today think that while the economy is still in recession, things are getting better or think the recession is over and the economy is recovering. That’s up from 49 percent last year, and 43 percent who felt that way in 2010.

Click here for full poll results

Views on the economy are seen through a partisan lens. A 64-percent majority of Democrats says the recession hasn’t ended, but things are getting better. For Republicans, a 54-percent majority says the recession continues, and things could get worse.

The poll asks respondents to name, without the aid of a list, who or what is most responsible for the current condition of the economy. Former President George W. Bush and Republicans top the list (25 percent), followed by President Obama and Democrats (21 percent). Another 14 percent generically blame “the federal government.”

By a 16 percentage-point margin, more voters think raising taxes on wealthy Americans will help (40 percent) rather than hurt the economy (24 percent). A third says it won’t make much of a difference either way (34 percent). Democrats are nearly four times as likely as Republicans to say raising taxes on the wealthy will boost the economy.

Meanwhile, voters with an annual income of less than $100,000 think raising taxes on the wealthy will help the economy. Those with income over $100,000 are most likely to say such an increase won’t make a difference.

Even so, by a 16 percentage-point margin voters see Obama’s so-called “Buffett Rule” proposal to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans as an “election-year gimmick,” as opposed to a serious proposal, and by two-to-one voters think those additional tax dollars would be used mainly to fund more government spending (58 percent) rather than reduce the federal deficit (28 percent).

Most Republicans (84 percent), a majority of independents (63 percent) and about a quarter of Democrats (24 percent) think the president’s Buffett Rule proposal is a gimmick.

All in all, the nation is evenly divided over whether President Obama is taking his share of responsibility for the country’s economy. While 44 percent say he is, 47 percent think after three years in office Obama is spending too much time blaming others.

Seventy-six percent of Democrats think Obama is taking his share of responsibility. Even more Republicans -- 86 percent -- think he is blaming others. Independents are more likely to say the president is blaming others (by a 47-37 percent margin).

Additional findings from the poll:
-- Equal numbers of voters -- 42 percent -- approve and disapprove of the job Vice President Joe Biden is doing. Sixteen percent are unsure.

-- Sec. of State Hillary Clinton receives better ratings than her boss: 67 percent of voters approve of the job she’s doing. That includes not only 94 percent of Democrats, but also 60 percent of independents and 40 percent of Republicans. Approval of Clinton bests Obama across the board, as 83 percent of Democrats, 33 percent of independents and 7 percent of Republicans give him the thumbs up.

-- Voters approve of the U.S. withdrawing military troops in Afghanistan by a wide 78-16 percent margin. Furthermore, even if U.S. military leaders think Pakistan poses a threat and so want to keep troops there to protect the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, 61 percent support withdrawing U.S. troops.

-- Fully 84 percent of voters think recent scandals involving the General Services Administration and the Secret Service are things that could happen under any administration. Some 15 percent think these are example of bad management by the Obama administration.

-- A 53-percent majority says the government’s program to crack down on illegal gun-trafficking known as “Operation Fast and Furious” was a “bad idea from the start.” About a third of voters think it was a “good idea that went bad” (33 percent). A third thinks Attorney General Eric Holder should be fired over the program, which allowed thousands of guns to be smuggled into Mexico. Another third thinks Holder should be reprimanded, but not fired and 12 percent say no action should be taken against him.

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 915 randomly-chosen registered voters nationwide and is conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from April 22 to April 24. For the total sample, it has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points


Read more: Fox News Poll: 45 percent approve of Obama, as 83 percent say country still in recession | Fox News
__________________
Mrs. Garrison is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 04:03 PM   #175
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Mrs. Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: pig farming in Bolivia
Posts: 7,222
Local Time: 09:53 PM
Issa, Chaffetz confirm contempt plans for Holder over Fast and Furious | Fox News

Quote:
House GOP leaders said Friday they are pursuing a plan to hold Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and the Justice Department in contempt for “stonewalling” them over information regarding the administration’s failed Fast and Furious gun-tracking program.

GOP Rep. Darrell Issa confirmed to Fox News that House Speaker John Boehner gave him and others on his House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform the authority to drafted a contempt of Congress resolution.

“We have a few other options (but) to a great extent we’ve been stonewalled by the Justice Department,” said Issa, R-Calif.

The news of the document and the extended meeting in Boehner’s office was reported first by The Los Angeles Times.

“We have issued a subpoena,” Utah GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a member of the oversight committee, said earlier on Fox News. “We have bent over backwards to be patient and take time. (Holder) is leading us down a path where we have no other choice.”

The resolution, if approved by the GOP-led House, could force Holder to release thousands of pages of documents related to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ program.

Holder and other Justice Department officials say they are cooperating with Congress’ investigators.

The Fast and Furious program was run by the ATF’s Phoenix office from 2009 until early 2011. It allowed illegal gun purchases with the expectation of tracking the weapons to Mexican drug cartel leaders. However, hundreds of guns disappeared, with some eventually turning up at crime scenes in Mexico.

Issa said investigator still want to know the names of those worked in the program.

Two were found where U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was shot to death south of Tucson in December 2010.

A number of illegal straw purchasers have been indicted, and two others are charged in Terry's slaying, according to the Times.


Read more: Issa, Chaffetz confirm contempt plans for Holder over Fast and Furious | Fox News
__________________
Mrs. Garrison is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 04:28 PM   #176
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison View Post
Clearly you are not paying attention to what Romney has said, he plans to cut programs in part to reduce the deficit. Notice i said "cut" and not "eliminate" entirely. He has said that he would repeal Obama-care. What he says & what he actually ends up doing, if elected, remains to be seen. But i doubt we end up with another $5 TRILLION in new deficits in 3 years under a Romney administration.


he's going to cut taxes and increase defense spending in addition to hurting women and poor children. so there's that.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 04:39 PM   #177
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:53 PM
Quote:
Mitt: The real European
Romney bashes Obama for "making us like Europe." But he's the one pushing failed European austerity measures
BY ANDREW LEONARD


An odd thing happened during Mitt Romney’s victory-lap speech after Tuesday’s Republican primaries: He didn’t once mention the word “Europe.”

The absence was jarring, because Romney’s claim that President Obama is dragging the United States toward a loathsome European-style “social welfare” future has been a staple of the former Massachusetts governor’s shtick ever since he started campaigning in earnest.

It’s always been an easy line for him: Europe, Romney’s audience understands, is the land of the not-free. The continent gave birth to Karl Marx, for crying out loud! Every now and then, socialist political parties actually take power!

But there is a big problem with Romney’s formulation. For the last year or two, Europe has been implementing, in real time, exactly the policies that Romney and congressional Republicans fervently believe are the best strategy for boosting economic growth. It’s called “austerity,” and it means cutting deficits, slashing spending, and chipping away at all those goodies the social welfare state provides.

And guess what? It’s not working. Compared with the United States, Europe is in shambles. Unemployment is rising across the continent. Just this week, the United Kingdom, which has pursued an austerity regime so severe that it makes House Republicans drool with lust, slipped back into recession. In France, the socialist candidate for president (and likely winner), François Hollande, has been campaigning against austerity. Italy’s prime minister, Mario Monti, is expressing qualms. The latest news out of Brussels, according to the Daily Telegraph, suggests “a major shift in economic strategy” as fears spread “that excessive fiscal tightening will inflict unnecessary damage on a string of eurozone countries.”

The evidence keeps amassing. Maybe, just maybe, John Maynard Keynes was right: Cutting government spending in the face of a weak economy is a recipe for further decline. In a startling turnabout, political leaders all over Europe are questioning the merits of austerity and calling for more stimulative policies.

You can see the problem Romney faces, and why he might suddenly be reluctant to utter the word “Europe.” The facts are uncomfortable: Under Obama, the United States has recovered more quickly from the Great Recession than has Europe. Economic growth is steadier, and unemployment is falling faster. But if Romney wins the White House, bringing along with him Republican majorities in both the Senate and the House, he will have the power to do exactly what he says he wants to do: slash government spending and cut the deficit.

It’s a plan that runs the very real risk of sabotaging the economic recovery. It’s a plan, in other words, that would make the U.S. just like Europe.

Romney’s efforts to tar Obama as a fifth columnist for French-accented Really Big Government have been unrelenting. In December, he told voters in Iowa that Obama’s polices “were making us like Europe,” and “I don’t want Europe here.” In January, after winning the New Hampshire primary, he lambasted Obama for wanting “to turn America into a European-style entitlement society.” Just a few days ago, he explained to Fox News that the conservative base would rally behind his candidacy, because “President Obama has taken America in such a different course than we have ever gone as a nation before. We are becoming far more like a European social-welfare state, and people don’t want to see that.”

Never mind that by historical standards Obama’s efforts to strengthen the American safety net do not come close to the transformational efforts of presidents like Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, making Romney’s assertion that Obama is taking America on “such a different course than we have ever gone as a nation before” transparently ridiculous. If anyone running for president this year in the United States is a pioneer in European-style liberalism, it’s got to be Romney, the first governor to preside over the creation of a statewide universal healthcare plan. (And for a guy who seems to despise Europe so much, Romney sure seems to enjoy vacationing in France.)

But whatever. Romney’s Europe-bashing rhetoric serves multiple purposes. It labels Obama as something different, a “foreigner,” un-American. It also directly appeals to conservative concerns that the social welfare state is unaffordable. In this vein, unless governments everywhere tighten their belts, balance their budgets and get their ships in order, we’re all headed down the hopeless path of Greece, doomed to bankruptcy and social chaos.

Most importantly, Romney’s opposition to European-style Big Government stakes an implicit position on the great economic debate of our time: How best to spur economic growth?

The stances of the two main camps have been clear for years and endlessly debated by economists and pundits. The pro-stimulus, Keynesian argument holds that the problem afflicting stagnant economies all over the world is a lack of demand. When everyone is worried about their economic future, everyone simultaneously tightens their belt, and the capitalist machine stops in its tracks. Since no one is willing to buy anything, companies can’t sell their goods and services and respond by laying off their employees, and that further exacerbates the overall problem. Under such constraints, only the government has the power to step in and stimulate demand. Once the economy is growing strongly and consistently, only then do you look for ways to balance the budget — a task that becomes much easier when tax revenues are booming again.

The opposing camp, now commonly referred to as “Austerians,” believes the problem isn’t a lack of demand, but a lack of confidence. People are afraid to invest and buy and take risks because they’re worried that high deficits inevitably lead to high taxes, or high interest rates, or general fiscal chaos (or all of the above). And they’re going to hunker down until they’re sure that governments intend to act responsibly, and live within their means.

The Austerian camp’s stance translated into one of the most delightfully mindbendingly oxymoronic proposals to enter the economic policy parlance in years: “expansionary fiscal contraction.” Cutting government spending will boost confidence, which will lead to growth! To get big, one must first get small.

It was all the rage two years ago. Today, not so much. The problem with expansionary fiscal contraction is that when you try it at a time when the economy is stagnant or recessionary, you run a real risk of exacerbating the problem you are trying to cure. Slashing government spending subtracts demand from the economy. Growth slows, tax revenues fall, and suddenly the government has even less to spend, which subtracts even more demand from the economy.

And that’s exactly what appears to be happening in Europe — in countries such as Greece, Italy, Spain and France, and perhaps most intriguingly, in the United Kingdom, where David Cameron’s new conservative government pursued austerity with a vengeance. From the outset, a clamor of voices warned that the risks were huge, and so far, their worries have been validated. On Monday, the U.K. registered its second quarter of economic contraction, the rule-of-thumb definition for a recession.

It’s very rare that one gets a real-time demonstration of how two different economic policies compare, but the numbers are hard to argue with: In the “euro area,” where austerity has reigned, GDP growth has declined for each of the last four quarters. In the U.S. it has risen. In the euro area, unemployment has been rising for a year. In the U.S. , it’s been falling. As Felix Salmon observes, when one compares the United States, the U.K and the euro area, “the tougher and more credible the austerity, the worse the GDP performance.”

The trend lines are far too obvious to ignore, and they have sparked a political counter-reaction that appears to have reached critical mass this week. In Italy, France, Spain and the Netherlands, austerity is suddenly out of favor.

Meanwhile, the United States, despite the best efforts of Republicans, never pursued austerity as devoutly as Europe. Which is not to say the U.S. hasn’t tightened its belt at all. Perhaps the most stunning counter-argument to Romney’s accusation that Obama is pushing for a government-centered European-style government can be seen in the decline in the size of the public sector under Obama: During his presidency, employment in the public sector — local, state and federal government — has fallen by almost 600,000 jobs. In comparison, Bill Clinton added over 600,000 and George Bush added 800,000. As Paul Krugman points out, if Obama’s administration had added public sector jobs at the same rate as George Bush, unemployment would currently stand around 7 percent.

But even with those headwinds blowing against it, the U.S. has done surprisingly well. The first guess at GDP growth for the second quarter of 2012, due out Friday morning, is likely to peg growth at around 3 percent. (UPDATE: A disappointing surprise: 2.2 percent.) Meanwhile, the most recently available statistics for the euro area show it contracting.

Which leads us back to the all-important question: What happens if Romney wins the election? The chances are good that if he is victorious, he will bring in Republican control of Congress along with him. Anything budget-related can be passed using the congressional technique known as “reconciliation,” which means Senate Democrats won’t be able to filibuster. He’ll be able to do what he wants.

Once upon a time, Mitt Romney supported stimulus spending to boost the economy. But now he sings a different tune. He has endorsed Paul Ryan’s budget, — “It’s an excellent piece of work, and very much needed” — which would combine huge cuts to social welfare programs with dramatic tax cuts for the wealthy — an austerity program directly targeted at the poor. Romney’s speeches are generally devoid of specific policy proposals, but he’s fond of encapsulating his overall economic strategy with the three Tea Party-friendly words “cut,” “cap” and “balance” — the simplest definition of austerity one could ask for. And as he said in Philadelphia on April 12, “The economy is struggling because government is too big, and we have to bring it down to size.”

All together, everything points to a plan for turbo-boosted austerity. That’s exactly the model that Europe has tried and is now finding wanting. And it’s exactly the wrong medicine for a country in which economic growth is still very vulnerable and unemployment is still high.

Wanna be like Europe? Elect Romney.

Mitt: The real European - Mitt Romney - Salon.com


you see?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 05:16 PM   #178
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 09:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison View Post
Fox News Poll
Well, duh.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 05:39 PM   #179
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 09:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison View Post
Clearly you are not paying attention to what Romney has said, he plans to cut programs in part to reduce the deficit. Notice i said "cut" and not "eliminate" entirely. He has said that he would repeal Obama-care. What he says & what he actually ends up doing, if elected, remains to be seen. But i doubt we end up with another $5 TRILLION in new deficits in 3 years under a Romney administration.
History demonstrates that Supply Side economics creates deficits (and in the W Bush case, zero job creation over 8 years). The Ryan and Romney plan have both been objectively graded and have been shown to create deficits. I've paid specific attention to what Romney has said. He believes in the same Big Republicanism myths that all the rest of them do.

I say this as a self-described fiscal conservative, although my idea of fiscal conservatism doesn't jibe with the the popular definition. I just think we should actually pay for the government EVERYBODY wants. No more deficit spending. And these Romney ideas simply cannot generate enough revenue to pay for government that EVERYBODY wants. It really is that simple.

This is why Reagan, GHW Bush and G W Bush ALL ran deficits.
Same song, different verse. You cannot pay for this government with tax cuts and spending cuts. We need both tax revenues and spending cuts.

So yeah, good for Romney and the Republicans for getting serious about spending cuts/reform. I welcome it. But they can't balance the budget with supply-side Reaganomics...there isn't enough revenue being generated.

And we have to acknowledge, apart from partisan politics, the government that EVERYBODY wants. Which is not small enough to pay for with 18% federal revenues relative to GDP. The last five balanced budgets (surplus) the US Govt had, we had revenues at (an avergae of) 19.5% to GDP. And those numbers are based upon a system BEFORE the present, where everyone is living longer and more and more people are going on SS and Medicare. It is simply delusion to believe that Romney's economics makes any sense. You, Indy or anyone else, show me how it would work. I am all ears.

Part of acknowledging the Govt everyone wants is also acknowledging what Romney and Co, will NOT be able to cut. Because they actually would WANT to stay in office. And it is the precise reason why Reagan and both Bushes ran deficits. Nobody is willing to cut programs that will cost them elections. NOBODY. This is exactly why we are in the predicament we are in. And I promise you, nothing has changed.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 06:43 PM   #180
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,262
Local Time: 10:53 PM
The soon-to-be President of France has proposed a 75% tax on millionaires. Could you imagine what would happen if we raised taxes that much and at the same time shrunk the bloated, wasteful military budget by 75%? That deficit would be gone in no time.

Hence why the Republicans are the worst of both worlds. They want to suggest cuts from the non-Pentagon side of the government (of which all the inessential programs add up to a pittance), expand the size of the military budget (which is in Paul Ryan's plan) and cut taxes on the wealthiest in this country. If they're elected, the deficit will careen further out of control and they'll refuse to even talk about it (just what they did while Bush was President). In the meantime, they'll waste away hours in the chambers of Congress trying to get the votes to eliminate any 2 million dollar per year program they view as "liberal"
__________________

__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com