endzone_dave Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 Yep seems to be more a revnue problem to meIf you look at the countries on the list and how they are rated and how they are doing you see the spending is higher as is the taxation I won't argue with that. If we are going to close that gap, increasing revenues looks like a good place to start. Cutting spending would hurt either though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 seems to be more a revnue problem to me Even Obama, who recommended 3 to 1 spending cuts to tax hikes, disagrees with you. This is a deficit problem, not simply an entitlement problem and certainly not "more a revenue problem". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 I won't argue with that. If we are going to close that gap, increasing revenues looks like a good place to start. Cutting spending would hurt either though. There are places I can see to cut without affecting those who are in need Overhauling medicare and medicaid so it benefits the people who use and treat people Means testing government programs is good also. ---------- Post added August-6th-2011 at 09:59 AM ---------- Even Obama, who recommended 3 to 1 spending cuts to tax hikes, disagree with you. Well much like the healthcare bill he has to quit trying to do things that please the pubs The biggest problem I see with the US is the added exspense by trying to do things as both social and private The socialize costs and a few people get rich and the country suffers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 Well much like the healthcare bill he has to quit trying to do things that please the pubs Ah. You think he should be unyielding like DeMint and Pelosi. I disagree. I wish both sides would be more willing to compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 The Senate are the only ones responsible: They have been shirking their duties for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 Ah. You think he should be unyielding like DeMint and Pelosi. I disagree. I wish both sides would be more willing to compromise. No what I think is if you are going to socialize things then do it. You saw what happened when he did it with the school loans the right screamed he was taking over the student loan business when it was government money all along they were just paying banks to administer it and letting them earn interest. People think things like this example and medicare are private run because of this, all it does is raise costs take money from those who could use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 Smith, you aren't one of those fruitloops who believes people on the other side of the political spectrum are "terrorists" are you? When you demonize your opposition (both the Tea Party and Obama have gotten this treatment), uncompromising obstinance starts to feel noble. I think Obama's 3 to 1 direction toward cutting the deficit was a very good outline towards a compromise. It was offered too late and his leadership was tepid, but it was a good direction. Too bad both ideological extremes in congress wouldn't go that route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdsknbill Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 Even Obama, who recommended 3 to 1 spending cuts to tax hikes, disagrees with you.This is a deficit problem, not simply an entitlement problem and certainly not "more a revenue problem". As he and the other democrats were spending it like it was water just over a year ago. I blame them all on this, but the bailouts started this. Yes the car makers are returning to profit, but how about the banks? http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/ Committed Invested $11 trillion $3 trillion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 Smith, you aren't one of those fruitloops who believes people on the other side of the political spectrum are "terrorists"? When you demonize your opposition (both the Tea Party and Obama have gotten this treatment), unthinking obstinance starts to feel noble.I think Obama's 3 to 1 direction toward cutting the deficit was a very good outline towards a compromise. It was offered too late and his leadership was tepid, but it was a good direction. Too bad both ideological extremes in congress wouldn't go that route. I do not think they were terrorists I believed they are ill informed idealouges. The problem is lack of thought and and attacking what everyone else accepts as fact is the problem I have with what has happened with the right. You take the pubs from the 90s and put them in situation and this does not happen. Where I would balme Obama is on messaging and when the Dems had the house he should have gotten through all the things needed inluding the budget Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 You take the pubs from the 90s and put them in situation and this does not happen. Of course, they had both the House and Senate and an exploding economy, but you're probably right. Take Clinton and put him in this situation, I don't think it happens either. That man knew how to get in front of a strong wind like no other president in my lifetime. Its a nice trait to have in a leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 Of course, they had both the House and Senate and an exploding economy, but you're probably right. Take Clinton and put him in this situation, I don't think it happens either. That man knew how to get in front of a strong wind like no other president in my lifetime. Its a nice trait to have in a leader. That goes to messaging, Clinton would have gone to the people much sooner than Obama did If Obama was as ready to jump into action to clear up misinformation surrounding his job as he was about himself during the campaign he would have been in a much better position. IF he had used his following to put pressure on Dems during the health care debate he could have brought in a better deal that would cover everyone and cut government spending Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 That goes to messaging, Clinton would have gone to the people much sooner than Obama did With the same 3 to 1 spending to tax plan Obama had...but he's have sold it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 With the same 3 to 1 spending to tax plan Obama had...but he's have sold it. One thing that sort of strike me odd in spending cuts is any talk of cutting Social Security since the US is in debt to that fund it seems it wants to be able to not have to pay that back by saying the fund no longer needs the money. It seems to me like someone who owes me money coming to me and saying they will cut my cost so they do not need to pay me back. Of course one has to wonder why the debt does not get cancelled on the books so it make the picture look better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 One thing that sort of strike me odd in spending cuts is any talk of cutting Social Security since the US is in debt to that fund it seems it wants to be able to not have to pay that back by saying the fund no longer needs the money.It seems to me like someone who owes me money coming to me and saying they will cut my cost so they do not need to pay me back. Of course one has to wonder why the debt does not get cancelled on the books so it make the picture look better SO if we increase spending 21% over 2009, 2010 we can't cut it back 3% in 2012? OR we can't have means testing that says; Yes, you paid into it but you earn (ALL monies) more than 4,000 a month so you do not qualify as you are already socially secure? We need to run these programs with common sense. Chips for children should not go up to 80k income. its wasting resources for those that actually need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 SO if we increase spending 21% over 2009, 2010 we can't cut it back 3% in 2012? Domestically no and is that spending increase from putting the wars on the books? You still have 9 percent unemployment and have done nothing to address fixing that nor have you done anything about revenues and S&P does not think you have what it takes to increase them due to the current climate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD5 Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 Amazing incompetence, and partisan hackery. All of these people need to be fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 Domestically no and is that spending increase from putting the wars on the books?You still have 9 percent unemployment and have done nothing to address fixing that nor have you done anything about revenues and S&P does not think you have what it takes to increase them due to the current climate I thought we've come back from 10+ unemployment down to almost 8%, thats almost 3% right there? The wars have been on the books for years, and the troops have been coming back and costing less for years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 I thought we've come back from 10+ unemployment down to almost 8%, thats almost 3% right there?The wars have been on the books for years, and the troops have been coming back and costing less for years... No the wars were not put on the books until Obama, the cost of the wars is going to keep going on those injured vets will also cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 Downgrade? Wow, didn't see that coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 I thought we've come back from 10+ unemployment down to almost 8%, thats almost 3% right there?The wars have been on the books for years, and the troops have been coming back and costing less for years... We're at 9.1% right now. It's dropped 1%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 No the wars were not put on the books until Obama, the cost of the wars is going to keep going on those injured vets will also cost. You realize President Obama has been in for many years now: and supplmentals are still happening, just not as a yearly budget: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/161/end-the-abuse-of-supplemental-budgets-for-war/ So again: The wars have been on the budges and Iraq has been downgraded to military training only. Does that allow for a 3% cut in growth of a program after a 20+% increase? Your right about the 1%, but thats a 1% cut, it was a 9% slowdown in increase if we want to use government standards . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 You realize President Obama has been in for many years now: and supplmentals are still happening, just not as a yearly budget: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/161/end-the-abuse-of-supplemental-budgets-for-war/So again: The wars have been on the budges and Iraq has been downgraded to military training only. Does that allow for a 3% cut in growth of a program after a 20+% increase? Your right about the 1%, but thats a 1% cut, it was a 9% slowdown in increase if we want to use government standards . And the wars only went on the books then and supplmental spending has been used way to much. Revenues should have been raised as soon as the wars started. Spending may need to increase to cut unemployment. You have choice unemployment bennies or investments to get people to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 Spending made need to increase to cut unemployment. . How does that work, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 How does that work, exactly? You mean like in the forms of filling government jobs and put money into infrastructure on federal programs and with states who are willing to do the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 You mean like in the forms of filling government jobs and put money into infrastructure on federal programs and with states who are willing to do the same What a great idea! Have the government hire all the unemployed and our debtroblem is solved in one fell swoop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.