Get serious. Bush never had a solid majority in either house during the first 6 years of his administration, and the Democrats controlled both houses the last 2 years. Our financial mess is because of reckless spending by both parties.
No Democrat wants to answer this question: when does this deficit spending stop? In other words, how much money are we going to borrow from China and other countries who are not our friends? How much can we afford to pay each year for interest on the national debt?
And before you answer, “Tax the wealthy,” here is an interesting fact. According to the IRS, taxing all taxable income over $100,000 at a 100% rate would have generated $1.5 trillion in ‘08. That is less than the current deficit.
To say “the Repubs spend like crazy then blame the Dems’ is pure nonsense.
By all means tax the wealthy - quickly, post-haste, before it’s too late and the nation goes down the dumper dragging western civilization with it!
Presently under QE2 $4 BILLION PER DAY since November is being printed and injected into the economy just to stay afloat, which is to continue until June. Then what? QE3? QE4….? This can’t continue! Something very bad will happen. It is unavoidable. America is bankrupt.
Get serious about reducing the deficit. Do it on the revenue and the expense side. Dump the political blaming and co-operate. There is no time to lose. WAKE UP!!!
Quite frankly, the $4T over 12 years to reduce the deficit is a worthless plan. That amounts to $333B per year at a time when the deficit is $1.5T per year, making the deficit still more than $1T/year. Worse yet, it is back-loaded, meaning Obama doesn’t have to reduce his spending – he’s passing the problem on to his successor. No matter how painful, both Dems and Repubs MUST work on a plan to eliminate the deficit and reduce the debt. Any deficit only adds to the debt and the resultant problem.
^OK, Bush has been gone for over 2 years! When are people (D&R) going to get serious about the mess our country is in? Yes, Bush spent like a Democrat; but look @ what Obama has done during his short tenure!
The “wonder plan agreement” actually only whacks off a few million bucks, another joke played by both sides of the aisle. As for “goldie” always defending Shrub and his Imperial Presidency, a little detail on his driving the country into Afghanistan and especially, Iraq, does show who raped the economy, and our troops, and well, the people of Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan. Japan acted less “imperial” leading up to Pearl Harbor, than the Bush administration going into Iraq
“I have a credit card, and I was told by the “grown ups” that I could pay less each month despite compounding interest on the balance, and if I just spend a little bit less on seniors and teachers (despite spending with reckless abandon on the military), the balance will disappear!”
My point, which you obviously missed, Neocon, is that “taxing the rich” will not solve the deficit. Only dramatic spending cuts will, and the Democrats are unwilling to do that. These spending cuts must include the so-called “corporate welfare” and defense.
There are many economists who believe that tax cuts stimulate the economy. It is based on the old fashioned belief that people manage their money better than the federal government does. In fact, JFK agreed and cut taxes.
The Repo-blicans are totally ignoring the hardware store next door where they’ve been running up a huge tab since 2001 (actually, long before that.) It’s been operating in the red for years, but since it has such neat toys, like bombs and tanks and airplanes, and because it’s owned by a bunch of good old boys, it’s considered “off limits”.
@AuH20 - ““taxing the rich” will not solve the deficit. Only dramatic spending cuts will”
Nope - neither decreasing expenses nor increasing revenue will work alone. Has to be both - the problem is too far gone. The rich have been getting a free ride for too long. Time to pay back.
“…There are many economists who believe that tax cuts stimulate the economy…..”
Under certain situations - yes, but not under current conditions. The majority of reputable economists are not advocating supply-side economics at this time. Stimulation is not what is missing. Liquidity is now being injected into the economy through QE2 at the rate of $4 billion per day starting last November and going to this June. Quantitative easing (QE) basically means the Fed is scared as hades, doesn’t know what to do, so print huge amounts of money and try to keep interest rates low. (You can imagine what would happen to the economy, not to mention many home mortgages under water, if interest rates shot up even to average long term rates on $14 trillion debt.) And then what happens in June when the music stops? More QE until the value of the dollar plummets and interest rates rocket?
Time to end the fool’s paradise and start paying the bills.
Canbag, I gotta mostly agree with you. I’m ok with raising taxes up a notch on the “rich” (even though they pay the bulk of taxes collected already), but only as part of an overall plan that reduced the size of government, including automatic entitlement spending. The left hates the idea of reducing government (after all, most government workers vote for them, as do most people who are dependent on government contracts and handouts), so it’s just handier to “blame the rich” and take their money when they screw the pooch and mishandle spending.
Your last sentence is good, but the real key to responsible money management is not to have so many bills to pay. It starts with a balanced budget.
@ halfabug, that’s not true. Obama can point to his accompishments, such as winning the Nobel Peace Prize while involving the US in more simultaneous wars than any president in recent memory. That’s quite a trick!
Nemesys, Can’t disagree with your take either. Although I’d quibble at your shot at the left - takes in too much territory to be meaningful.
Note Standard and Poor’s downgrade of the American economy to negative this morning and the DOW down 240 points at this time. Not surprising, probably more to come.
Spending out of control and $14 trillion of debt is like a glacier in troubled waters. Reckless navigation and it will sink the Good Ship America, taking others with it.
I hope investors and the retired are looking at capital preservation.
NeoConMan, you’re funny. By the way, if everyone was taxed 25 percent across the board, why wouldn’t that be fair? It would be just as much of a slap in the face for a person earning $100,000 to lose $25,000 as it would a person earning $100 to lose $25.
Justice22 about 13 years ago
And so it goes, the Repubs spend like crazy then blame it on the Dems.
AuH2O about 13 years ago
Get serious. Bush never had a solid majority in either house during the first 6 years of his administration, and the Democrats controlled both houses the last 2 years. Our financial mess is because of reckless spending by both parties.
No Democrat wants to answer this question: when does this deficit spending stop? In other words, how much money are we going to borrow from China and other countries who are not our friends? How much can we afford to pay each year for interest on the national debt?
And before you answer, “Tax the wealthy,” here is an interesting fact. According to the IRS, taxing all taxable income over $100,000 at a 100% rate would have generated $1.5 trillion in ‘08. That is less than the current deficit.
To say “the Repubs spend like crazy then blame the Dems’ is pure nonsense.
Gypsy8 about 13 years ago
By all means tax the wealthy - quickly, post-haste, before it’s too late and the nation goes down the dumper dragging western civilization with it!
Presently under QE2 $4 BILLION PER DAY since November is being printed and injected into the economy just to stay afloat, which is to continue until June. Then what? QE3? QE4….? This can’t continue! Something very bad will happen. It is unavoidable. America is bankrupt.
Get serious about reducing the deficit. Do it on the revenue and the expense side. Dump the political blaming and co-operate. There is no time to lose. WAKE UP!!!
beenthere41 about 13 years ago
Quite frankly, the $4T over 12 years to reduce the deficit is a worthless plan. That amounts to $333B per year at a time when the deficit is $1.5T per year, making the deficit still more than $1T/year. Worse yet, it is back-loaded, meaning Obama doesn’t have to reduce his spending – he’s passing the problem on to his successor. No matter how painful, both Dems and Repubs MUST work on a plan to eliminate the deficit and reduce the debt. Any deficit only adds to the debt and the resultant problem.
mnsmkd about 13 years ago
^OK, Bush has been gone for over 2 years! When are people (D&R) going to get serious about the mess our country is in? Yes, Bush spent like a Democrat; but look @ what Obama has done during his short tenure!
Dapperdan61 Premium Member about 13 years ago
Same credit card GW used to start 2 wars & no way to pay for them
Dtroutma about 13 years ago
The “wonder plan agreement” actually only whacks off a few million bucks, another joke played by both sides of the aisle. As for “goldie” always defending Shrub and his Imperial Presidency, a little detail on his driving the country into Afghanistan and especially, Iraq, does show who raped the economy, and our troops, and well, the people of Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan. Japan acted less “imperial” leading up to Pearl Harbor, than the Bush administration going into Iraq
Jaedabee Premium Member about 13 years ago
“I have a credit card, and I was told by the “grown ups” that I could pay less each month despite compounding interest on the balance, and if I just spend a little bit less on seniors and teachers (despite spending with reckless abandon on the military), the balance will disappear!”
AuH2O about 13 years ago
My point, which you obviously missed, Neocon, is that “taxing the rich” will not solve the deficit. Only dramatic spending cuts will, and the Democrats are unwilling to do that. These spending cuts must include the so-called “corporate welfare” and defense.
There are many economists who believe that tax cuts stimulate the economy. It is based on the old fashioned belief that people manage their money better than the federal government does. In fact, JFK agreed and cut taxes.
halfabug about 13 years ago
And Bush will still be blamed for the next 18 months. How sick. Obama can’t even campaign on what he thinks he’s done.
Bluejayz about 13 years ago
The Repo-blicans are totally ignoring the hardware store next door where they’ve been running up a huge tab since 2001 (actually, long before that.) It’s been operating in the red for years, but since it has such neat toys, like bombs and tanks and airplanes, and because it’s owned by a bunch of good old boys, it’s considered “off limits”.
Gypsy8 about 13 years ago
@AuH20 - ““taxing the rich” will not solve the deficit. Only dramatic spending cuts will”
Nope - neither decreasing expenses nor increasing revenue will work alone. Has to be both - the problem is too far gone. The rich have been getting a free ride for too long. Time to pay back.
“…There are many economists who believe that tax cuts stimulate the economy…..”
Under certain situations - yes, but not under current conditions. The majority of reputable economists are not advocating supply-side economics at this time. Stimulation is not what is missing. Liquidity is now being injected into the economy through QE2 at the rate of $4 billion per day starting last November and going to this June. Quantitative easing (QE) basically means the Fed is scared as hades, doesn’t know what to do, so print huge amounts of money and try to keep interest rates low. (You can imagine what would happen to the economy, not to mention many home mortgages under water, if interest rates shot up even to average long term rates on $14 trillion debt.) And then what happens in June when the music stops? More QE until the value of the dollar plummets and interest rates rocket?
Time to end the fool’s paradise and start paying the bills.
Nemesys about 13 years ago
Canbag, I gotta mostly agree with you. I’m ok with raising taxes up a notch on the “rich” (even though they pay the bulk of taxes collected already), but only as part of an overall plan that reduced the size of government, including automatic entitlement spending. The left hates the idea of reducing government (after all, most government workers vote for them, as do most people who are dependent on government contracts and handouts), so it’s just handier to “blame the rich” and take their money when they screw the pooch and mishandle spending.
Your last sentence is good, but the real key to responsible money management is not to have so many bills to pay. It starts with a balanced budget.
@ halfabug, that’s not true. Obama can point to his accompishments, such as winning the Nobel Peace Prize while involving the US in more simultaneous wars than any president in recent memory. That’s quite a trick!
Gypsy8 about 13 years ago
Nemesys, Can’t disagree with your take either. Although I’d quibble at your shot at the left - takes in too much territory to be meaningful.
Note Standard and Poor’s downgrade of the American economy to negative this morning and the DOW down 240 points at this time. Not surprising, probably more to come.
Spending out of control and $14 trillion of debt is like a glacier in troubled waters. Reckless navigation and it will sink the Good Ship America, taking others with it.
I hope investors and the retired are looking at capital preservation.
memememe191919 about 13 years ago
NeoConMan, you’re funny. By the way, if everyone was taxed 25 percent across the board, why wouldn’t that be fair? It would be just as much of a slap in the face for a person earning $100,000 to lose $25,000 as it would a person earning $100 to lose $25.