- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Mike Lee, Republican Senator from Utah - Going for the Jugular: President Obama Doesn't Have to Choose to Cut Social Security Benefits
His proposal:
What do you think?
a proper approach which will include cutting spending and raising taxes.
I am a Republican, but leaning away from the far right of the party that doesn't seem to want to face reality (much like the far left of the Democratic party).
I agree with you: we MUST cut spending, because Congress and the federal government are out of control and it's unsustainable. But we also HAVE to increase taxes a bit, but not just on the wealthy--that's where Obama's approach is all wrong. Taxes need to go up a couple percent ON EVERYBODY, not just on the top 1% or 2% of income earners. No one (no rational person, anyway) is suggesting that we go back to 70% or 90% rates on the highest marginal tax brackets. But it is clear that revenues have been too low, and expenditures--wars, bailouts, pensions, redundant programs, etc.--have been too high.
I think the only way we're going to get out of this mess is if enough rank and file Republicans (like me) speak up and say, "I'm okay with paying a bit more in taxes--IF you rein in spending" and if enough rank and file Democrats say "We can't fund the entire government by taxing the rich; we all have to chip in, and we're going to have to make some sacrifices."
The stimulus did a great deal of good, avoiding an almost certain depression. But we're just going to count that against him, apparently.
Good republcians don't want to kill granny
The few percentage points back to pre Bush tax cuts would have hardly been noticed by those targetted
Means testing needs to be part of it, but so does real healthcare reform
The stimulus did a great deal of good, avoiding an almost certain depression.
So, in refusing to take tax hikes off the table and refusing to accept cuts in entitlements, The Obama and the Dems are responsible for a failure to reach agreementUrging an unyielding theological line of no compromise whatsoever is exactly a championing of a failure to reach agreement.
:roll:You: Obama won't compromise.
Me: Obama offered 4 trillion in cuts that are deeply unpopular with his base and the GOP refuses to budge from their position.
he couldn't get his own party to pass them back when they were the majority. so now he wants Republicans to pass tax hikes for him....
yeah. no thanks.
At some point, the "Bush economy" excuse has to run out.You guys blame a man that was put into this situation.
So, in refusing to take tax hikes off the table and refusing to accept cuts in entitlements, The Obama and the Dems are responsible for a failure to reach agreement
At some point, the "Bush economy" excuse has to run out.
Of course, for the honest, that was better than a year ago.
It isn't an escape or an excuse, it is factually what happened.
Blindly hate the man if you wish, it doesn't mean it is rational.
Actually, no, it is in reference to those that argue that the GOP is unwilling to compromise, while the Dems are.That reference is to a political talk show host
Not sure how this does anything but reinforce my post.You cannot expect such far reaching damage done over the course of 8 years to be repaired in less than half that time.
It's a lot hard to fix that it was to break.
Thank you for reinforcing the soundness of my post.It isn't an escape or an excuse, it is factually what happened.
Blindly hate the man if you wish, it doesn't mean it is rational.
You guys blame a man that was put into this situation. .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?