I just love it when the uber-conservatives (which do not represent the majority of American voters, by the way) just reply to serious messages by saying, "Leave it to liberals to talk that way". These people do not offer any ideas of their own.

Big Business does not want tax increases on the millionaires and have paid off their Republican cohorts in PACs to scare seniors and others into thinking Democrats are in favor of cutting Social Security and Medicare. It is the G'Nopers who are the enemy of the working class.

The Democrats have offered compromises and the G;Nopers all say NO. Get off your fat butts and raise the debt ceiling NOW. If not, it is going to be economically disaster for all of us.

Originally Posted by Tbugs

I just love it when the uber-conservatives (which do not represent the majority of American voters, by the way) just reply to serious messages by saying, "Leave it to liberals to talk that way". These people do not offer any ideas of their own.

Big Business does not want tax increases on the millionaires and have paid off their Republican cohorts in PACs to scare seniors and others into thinking Democrats are in favor of cutting Social Security and Medicare. It is the G'Nopers who are the enemy of the working class.

The Democrats have offered compromises and the G;Nopers all say NO. Get off your fat butts and raise the debt ceiling NOW. If not, it is going to be economically disaster for all of us.

Yes; let's borrow trillions more and keep spending. That way we don't have to inconvenience anyone, and we'll let the grandchildren worry about the cost. The liberal solution.

Once again, Richie, you proved you do not understand what is going on. Just the typical G'Noper answer.

There are so many competing needs and goals that we need a strong leader with excellent comunication skills to establish a dialogue with the America people on our priorities. As important this leader must be of good moral character, fair and balanced. And finally most important of all she must be a REPUBLICAN.

Originally Posted by Tbugs

Once again, Richie, you proved you do not understand what is going on. Just the typical G'Noper answer.

You just try to make everything complicated. My take is short and sweet and maddeningly accurate for you, is all.

But at least I give you reason to use a new silly word of the week.

Seems to me, but I could be way out in left field, but why don't they cut Medicaid to the bone? That's where myriad abuses are taking place. Getting a free ride all of your life isn't being fiscally responsible, at least in my book.

Oh, I know, yes Medicare is also abused, but believe me, Medicaid is hemorraging money by the billions.

Richie,

I really do like the phrase "maddingly accurate". I will try to include it in an arguement if I have one with my wife this week. It should bring an interesting aspect to the conversation, to say the very least.

According to Paul O'Neil (Bush's first Sec. of Treasury) there was a projected five billion dollar surplus to be realized over the next ten years (2001 - 2010). This was projected three days after Bush took over the White House.

The surplus was squandered. Greenspan and O'Neil wanted to protect the surplus by controlling the "Tax Cut For The Rich" by a system of triggers. These triggers would reduce the tax cut if it threatened to turn the surplus into a deficit.

What happened?

Bush/Cheney through their Economic Adviser Lindsay ignored Greenspan and O'Neil and never wrote these triggers into the law.

I notice that you Republicans fail to acknowledge anything that might upset your Utopian view of Republican Nirvana.

I challenge you to address the issue that I presented above.

Originally Posted by BaylorBear

Seems to me, but I could be way out in left field, but why don't they cut Medicaid to the bone? That's where myriad abuses are taking place. Getting a free ride all of your life isn't being fiscally responsible, at least in my book.

Oh, I know, yes Medicare is also abused, but believe me, Medicaid is hemorraging money by the billions.

I have no problem with that. Nothing comes directly out of my paycheck for Medicaid.

It is so easy....eh?
Reduce all non essential spending by 20%.
Go back to the spending level of 2000.
No increased revenues need be considered.
The problem is it will take the dolts, both R & D too many years to determine what is non essential. They all subscribe to the only definition they know...essential are my programs, my donors programs, my lobbyists programs and first and foremost those programs that keep me in office.

Non essential are the other guys programs.

Hence the problem.

Do what is right for the country?

btk

Originally Posted by tonyafd

...Bush/Cheney through their Economic Adviser Lindsay ignored Greenspan and O'Neil and never wrote these triggers into the law....

The analysts now have realized that those 2001-2003 tax cuts, and then the 2010 extension, along with everything else that has happened since (two wars, the worst recession in almost a century, etc.) have resulted in a major component of the deficit we now have and which is growing exponentially.

But I must comment on this part of your statement. Bush and Cheney never wrote in any triggers because they never wrote the law. The Congress wrote the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, not anyone in the White House. I certainly wouldn't suggest that the President didn't offer words of encouragement for the bills, but he certainly didn't write them. The people to blame, if blame is the game, are the members of the U.S, Congress.

Originally Posted by billethkid

It is so easy....eh?
Reduce all non essential spending by 20%.
Go back to the spending level of 2000.
No increased revenues need be considered....

The only problem with statements like this, Billie, is that even if they were adopted tomorrow they wouldn't come within a country mile of balancing the budget or stopping the growth of the deficit.

Just a simple example. Let's say that we cut discretionary spending by 20%. That's a 20% cut of everything we know as "government" not counting any of the entitlement programs or defense. That would only produce a 3.6% reduction in government spending. ("Discretionary budget items" are only 18% of the federal budget.) In that about 40% of all our government expenditures are paid for with additional borrowed money, we'd still have an annual deficit of about $1 trillion! And the national debt would be increased by at least that amount every year.

No, the arithmetic is very clear. In order to balance the annual federal budget and begin to nick away at the national debt, there will have to be even deeper cuts in discretionary spending as well as massive changes in what we spend on entitlement programs and defense. Even then it's pretty clear that revenue (taxes) will also have to be increased.

Our politicians can pontificate on their competing ideologies all they wish. In the end it will be the capital markets and those that lend to us that will dictate what changes will have to be made. In our case, we're not like Greece or Ireland or Italy. There is no European Union to bail us out, to make more loans. In our case, when the Chinese decide to stop lending and when the Treasury printing more money causes alarming high rates of inflation, all those things our politicians refuse to negotiate are going to happen. It's unavoidable.

You always forget one thing. JOB'S. Low unemployment = more tax payers = more revenues the government. Here's the dirty little secret. Less people taking, more people producing.

JOB'S JOB'S JOB'S JOB'S. More jobs, less taxes, smaller government, less spending, balanced budget amendment. Kindergarden 101.

Can anyone tell me how Obama's higher taxes he's locked into are going to produce more jobs?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HxJimGgu58[/ame]

The prolem is the fear in the workplace.

Why are there no new jobs when corporate profits are going through the roof? I believe it's because of something exemplified in a post I read on another board.

Guy finally gets a better job at a truck manufacturing plant. 10,000 applied for 800 jobs. They're having supply problems when it comes to parts as they are working their staff ridiculous amounts of overtime and refuse to hire new workers. People go along with this because they are 1) being bought off and 2) scared to say 'no'.

Those reason contributed to the failure of my 2nd marriage. We never spent time together (I worked days, she worked nights) and our jobs demanded our first loyalty instead of each other. By the time I realized this, it was too late for her.

Remember, under Bush we were losing 750,000 jobs PER MONTH. The tax cut extensions did NOT work and they WON'T work as long as we keep outsourcing everything we can. For some reason, the Canadians can add 50% more jobs than we did last month and they have an economy 1/10th the size of ours with FAR higher taxes.

Yes jobs are the answer, but they must be good jobs. I work in IT. I now make twelve thousand dollars a year less than I made in 2000.

Why is that the case?

Service jobs have moved to India. Manufacturing jobs have moved to China.
The government didn't reduce the H-1b level even during the 2001 recession. I can speak for IT, but I suspect that the pain goes across the board.

Salaries have gone down by 20% or more. What this does is remove the cream from the milk because it was the higher paying jobs that produced the highest tax revenues.