- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
How about at the same time? Believe it or not, laws can be written in whcih it happens.
You miss the point and repeat a falsehood. I don't care who you are; that's funny.
Don't deny that. If you're apying attention, I suggest we cut spending and rasie taxes. A two pronged approach. It takes both. The trouble with both sides is the tendency to focus too much on only one prong. Do you think I'm wrong about this?
So far it's worked out pretty well, despite nearly uniform opposition from the side that left us this mess to begin with.
How about at the same time? Believe it or not, laws can be written in whcih it happens.
Yes, we can see how well it has worked out, there are more people unemployed today than when Obama took office, businesses are NOT hiring, 4.4 trillion has been added to the debt, the misery index is rising and "your" President has had total control of the govt. his first two years when those results were generated
I'd give you this...
Give me a 2:1 ratio in cuts to increased tax revenue...
You might also understand spending largely comes from us, the people. We demand services and actions. What do you think would have happened to congress had they not passed any stimulus?
Taxes, espeically target tax increases, won't really be felt or noticed int he economy. They would only bring in ore revenue. Going back to the pre-Bush tax cuts, for example, would not be noticed in any real way.
So you think that the Republicans have been absolutely unreasonable in their debt negotiations so far, give that Democrats have offered plans with as much as 6:1 cuts/revenue?
Democrats Offer Significant Concessions — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
This is why we don't have a direct democracy. The individual citizens can't be in charge of the purse strings. Basic human nature is one where you look out for yourself and your loved ones first and foremost. Basic human nature is that if you can get things given to you that betters your lot in life and do so without cost to you, you'll do it. Which is what "taxing the rich to demand services and action" basically is..its finding a way for you to better yourself without you actually having to pay for it.
Just like parents don't give their Children cookies at will and allow them to play xbox every moment of their free time, Congress shouldn't be just giving the people whatever free services or actions they want simply because they want it.
But people are paying a larger role today. Policiticans keep constant regard for polls, and they reacted based on what we want. While I agree policiticans shouldn't. Fact is they will.
That's nothing but a guess however, and one I don't necessarily agree with (And neither did Obama in December).
I think it is little more than a guess. We have history at higher rates, and they have largely made no difference at all. As for Obama, a politician I might add, he says what he has to say for good policitics, like any other politician.
Actually business ARE hiring -- it's government that is shedding jobs, which I believe your side considers a positive. As I said, considering where Obama started, and where we could be if he hadn't generally made the right moves, and the level of wrong-headed opposition he faces, it's worked out pretty well so far.
Any plan that offers so called cuts that are not to take effect until up to 10 years down the road where there is no guarantee that a congress of that time will pass what is agreed to now, or that is not containing real spending cuts, and not baseline are lies from demo's. We have a track record of that to plainly see.
j-mac
1. The Democrats plans have largely been back loaded in cuts. IE, its not 6:1 spending vs revenue every year but rather that's the over all plans set up. As I noted in my previous post...that's bull****...as its enacting the full tax increase now while backloading "spending cuts" to between 5 and 10 years down the line when there's no garauntee those will actually happen.
2. One of the large "cuts" is that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will end, which is not really a cut as they are inevitably ending things anyways that are exceptions, not continued expenses. Would the honest alternative be that if we didn't pass the spending cuts Obama or the next President would just keep them going on forever and ever? No. This is like being out of your house due to it flooding and having to live in a hotel room for a few weeks, and convincing your wife to let you buy that new Motorcycle you want by saying "Honey, if you let me buy this new motorcycle then we'll move out of this hotel room and we'll save $100 a day!".
3. Its not a "Cut", its a reduction of the amount that they'll increase the budget every year. That's not a CUT, that's a reduction in the amount of INCREASE.
4. Also, as I've previously stated, if the bill doesn't have some mechanism that if the cuts DON'T occur the tax increase will be revoked then its rather useless as the tax increase goes on the board but then they just use some emergency spending or alternative bill to ramp the spending back up while leaving the tax on the board.
5. I may be wrong, but this is again a plan where the increase in income tax burden would be on one group and one group alone. If you're going to increase taxes, everyone should feel it to some extent to remove the notion of "free money". It can be progressive, but it should be felt by all if its going to occur.
Private sector jobs are less now than when Obama took office so stop buying the liberal spin. I posted the bls.gov data. It does seem that nothing is going to change the mind of a leftwing ideologue including verifiable facts.
Private sector employment by month and after spending trillions.
2009 110981 110260 109473 108700 108374 107936 107649 107434 107221 106971 106937 106835
2010 106793 106772 106916 107145 107193 107258 107351 107461 107570 107713 107841 108008
2011 108102 108363 108582 108823 108922 108997 109153 109170
Obama inherited a private sector economy with 110.9 million private sector jobs that is 109.2 million in October 2011. Where is that private sector growth?
Thanks, the numbers you posted confirm what I wrote: businesses ARE hiring. As your data points out, private employment has increased for 18 months running.
The numbers I posted confirm that we have a net privare sector job loss in the first three years of the Obama Administration
Yes, but that's not what I was addressing. I said that private employers ARE hiring, and that is undeniable. Private employment has increased for 18 months in a row.
Private business will always hire just not enough to make a difference in the total which is the problem. You want to give him credit but never any blame for the actual results generated.
The numbers I posted confirm that we have a net privare sector job loss in the first three years of the Obama Administration
Obama should get neither. Presidents don't hire for private companies. :2funny:
And if a Republican were Prez do you think it would be any different?
It depends on which plan we're talking about. I think that some have been back loaded on both cuts and tax hikes. In any case, I think it would be suicidal to immediately enact both spending cuts and revenue hikes when what the economy needs is additional stimulus. It makes perfect sense to back load the plan, preferably with triggers linked to unemployment and/or GDP growth.
That's a bit of semantics. It's a cut from current funding levels, whether it's inevitable or not.
The budget has increased every year, and it will continue to increase every year, simply as a function of population growth, inflation, and the cost of debt repayment. We don't need a literal reduction in spending. We just need to balance spending and revenue.
Unfortunately these kinds of triggers, whichever way they run, cannot be guaranteed short of a constitutional amendment. But that's not going to happen, so I think we have to proceed as best we can.
You really don't know how private companies work. Economic policies affect company profits and the way companies operate. Since they cannot print money they have to do it the old fashion way, earn it. You really are naive if you believe the govt. doesn't affect hiring of the private sector. How do you think that small corner business is going to pay for the increased costs associated with Obamacare?
Private business will always hire just not enough to make a difference in the total which is the problem. You want to give him credit but never any blame for the actual results generated.
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?