Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Tiger in NC, Dec 6, 2012.
That's what Obama said.
good article here.
Let’s unpack this a bit. We all know Republicans want to spend less money. So the construction of the debate appears, on the surface, to be a pretty simple continuum based on policy preferences. Republicans like Mitch McConnell say government spending is “out of control” and would, at least ideally, like to bring it into line with revenue entirely through spending cuts. Democrats like Obama endorse a “balanced” solution with revenue and taxes. Right-thinking centrists, like the CEO community and their publicists like Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei, think we should cut deeply into entitlement spending while also raising tax revenue. (VandeHei, in a video accompanying his execrable story, asserts, “There’s money to be cut everywhere.”)
There really isn’t money to be cut everywhere. The United States spends way less money on social services than do other advanced countries, and even that low figure is inflated by our sky-high health-care prices. The retirement benefits to programs like Social Security are quite meager. Public infrastructure is grossly underfunded.
The Bowles-Simpson “plan” was an earnest and badly needed attempt to reconcile the GOP’s hazy belief that government is enormous with reality. They did everything they could possibly do: They brought in representatives from all sides for long meetings with budget experts, going through all aspects of federal policy in detail, in the hope of reaching an agreement on the proper scope of government and how to pay for it. It failed. The Bowles-Simpson plan wound up punting on all the major questions because it simply couldn’t bridge that gulf between perception and reality. That’s why, in lieu of any ability to identify government functions to eliminate, the plan simply pretended the federal government could have everybody do a lot more work for less pay.
The real domestic savings in Bowles-Simpson came from building on Obamacare’s steps to save money by holding down the growth of health-care costs and to cut defense spending by pretty steep levels. But these turned out to be ideas that alienated rather than satisfied Republicans. So basically it turned out to be impossible to find real spending cuts that Republicans wanted.
It’s true that Paul Ryan’s budget plan had some deep cuts. But none of those cuts touched Medicare for the next decade or Social Security at all. Ryan just kicked the crap out of the poor. So, that provision aside, if you’re not willing to inflict epic levels of suffering on the very poor, there just aren’t a lot of cuts to be had out there.
Sorry Mastermind this is partisan claptrap....at 25% of GDP there is plenty in the budget that can be cut. If they are comparing to Europe the comparison is with bankrupt countries who are in worse shape than we are. Is that where you want to go?
Part of the problem is where and how we spend that 25%. I won't pretend to know the details of budget matters but I can see we spend poorly in many places. We don't get value for our spending on large sectors of the budget. I see potential to cut in defense, education, and so many other places. One place I agree with the paragraphs above is that we are very underfunded in infrastructure spending.
[FONT=Georgia]Finally if you are part of the crowd that says we don't spend enough then you have your head in the ground and if that argument carries the day the US will in the same position as Greece, Portugal, Venezuela etc in our lifetime.[/FONT]
I said it was a good article, I didnt say I agree with specific context in the article.
I read this article too and, like you and Winston, I found certain portions of it to be thoughtful. I find myself supporting primarily democrat ideas of late even though I proudly regard myself as an independent. That said, I fundamentally disagree with the notion that spending cuts are not in order because they are. Dems cannot rail against medicare part d and label it Republican legislation if they are not willing to cut it, plain and simple. The only spending, and I do mean the ONLY spending increases I could justify at this point would be for infrastructure. We already know that building infrastructure pays off and can actually contribute to economic growth in the long run.
Honestly not trying to lay blame here but the facts are that between 2001 and 2008 we not only lowered taxes but we increased spending. For us to get back to where we were we will have to reverse, on some level, both of these. Obviously, nothing will cure these financial ills more quickly than a robust economy, so our lawmakers must also be mindful of not creating legislation that inhibits growth. Increasing taxes on those who earn more than a quarter million or so isn't going to impede the economy as some suggest. That said, further tax increases should be tied directly to economic indicators such as unemployment rate or gdp growth. By that same token, spending cuts cannot contribute to an already stagnant economy either so, by some measure or another, they must also be tied to critical benchmarks. This is a delicate balance that needs to be struck and I believe that the congress men and women who are serious about moving forward are beginning to realize this balance cannot be created without serious, good old fashioned compromise.
I spoke plainly, don't ever try to put words in my mouth.
But mostly they are right and in a democracy, they are important.
They are not mutually exclusive, we can do both.
The deficit next year is going to be 901 billion and reducing it by 40 billion is reducing the deficit. More cuts need to be made, but you don't give up $40 billion because the chumps don't like it.
Then why can't GOP identify any specific cuts?
He's comparing them to countries like Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Germany, Britain and France, which are not bankrupt and have a higher standard of living, education, and heath care than we do.
The US is nothing close to Greece, Portugal, and Venezuela and never will be. This is just more hysterical Republican doom-prediction.
You don't know either. You just are goign to run with your opinion that his adjustments were not valid and that Obama's adjustments were because you don't care about what is true. You only care about debate points. Sad.
You didn't speak clearly. You said debt proceeds weren't revenue then they were. Which are they?
You have offered no evidence. Not one shred. Just your interpretations of what Sessions said. Your opinion doesn't amount to much in terms of evidence pal. Proove your assertions or admit you cannot. Do make yourself a fool by pretending your own opinion is proof enough, unless you want to add ppeal to authority to the list of Red's most common logical fallacies.
1) This isn't a democracy it is a republic. 2) You can't support this claim. 3) The majority is wrong lots of times. Don't you ever watch Jay Walking.
But the democrats have not produced a plan to do so, and heave rejected the republican plan that had massive cuts.
It isn't enough. Plain and simple. Obama promised to cut the deficit by 50% by the end of the first term he lied. He is now unwilling to cut it enough to redeem himself in this term. The plan he has proposed does not create a sustainable budget situation.
I've watched people go bankrupt with that attitude. It can't happen to me/us. I/we are nothing like them.
Losers lament. I made my case, pointed out the flaws in Sessions thesis, and you don't like it. Tough shit.
Your failure to understand the statement even after I clarified it for you is not my problem.
The instant that sessions admitted that his numbers were NOT from the OMB, but numbers he made up . . . then it was all over except for your crying.
It is both, Einstein.
In a democracy the majority rules and you know it.
What plan was that? Please itemize the massive spending cuts you speak of.
Does the Republican plan do this? Assuming they had one?