Hold on Tight!!

[GannonFan]

Spending cuts aren't the same as reducing the rate of spending increases, especially when you base them on already inflated spending benchmarks. If that were the case, I'll tell my wife I'm going to cut my spending next year, but only after I buy a new car, a new TV, etc, this year. Year on year, I'll definitely see a spending cut next year!

my favorite tired trope federal budget = my home budget...

delightfully glib, but it doesn't change my point.

[travelinman67]

Hence why the Senate only changes completely over a 6 year period and the Presidency every 4. The House has always been designed to be reflective of rapid change, if needed. If those elected could show a better track record, we wouldn't turn people out every 2 years. Stability is acheived through doing your job well - we just aren't seeing enough of that right now.

I'm not saying the elections for the House shouldn't be every four years - they should be, they are a pressure valve... my point is that with only 50-60 potential swing seats, we already have problems... you make 400+ seats that way, and you won't get anything resembling continuity of government...

NOW you're getting the message!!!

There is no "governing" now...so...

[TwinTownBisonFan]

I'm not saying the elections for the House shouldn't be every four years - they should be, they are a pressure valve... my point is that with only 50-60 potential swing seats, we already have problems... you make 400+ seats that way, and you won't get anything resembling continuity of government...

NOW you're getting the message!!!

There is no "governing" now...so...

there's a lot more governing now then there would be in your fantasy scenario - that's for damn sure.

[travelinman67]

I'm very open minded - go ahead, try to explain why a short term tax cut with a looming tax increase should be considered the same as a more permanent tax cut in terms of its effect on both short term and long term behavior. I'm ready and willing to listen. Go ahead sparky.

I would if that was my assertion. But is wasn't, so I won't.

Democrats have put over a trillion in spending cuts on the table. Perhaps I missed the part where any Republican has suggested tax increases.

The problem is out of control spending. Decreased revenue is principally due to a depressed economy. Fix the economy, not increase taxes, to grow revenue. Raising taxes with further depress the economy.

This isn't rocket science, Kalm.

I really do try to understand why Donks knee-jerk to increasing taxes, but over and over, it keeps coming back to political expediency. Increased taxes=increased govt. spending=increased entitlement programs=increased entitlement recepient vote for Donks.

It always come back to political survival/career protection.


Vote
Them
All
Out

[travelinman67]

NOW you're getting the message!!!

There is no "governing" now...so...

there's a lot more governing now then there would be in your fantasy scenario - that's for damn sure.

...turn on the news. There's NO governing going on now.

[kalm]

I would if that was my assertion. But is wasn't, so I won't.

Democrats have put over a trillion in spending cuts on the table. Perhaps I missed the part where any Republican has suggested tax increases.

Spending cuts aren't the same as reducing the rate of spending increases, especially when you base them on already inflated spending benchmarks. If that were the case, I'll tell my wife I'm going to cut my spending next year, but only after I buy a new car, a new TV, etc, this year. Year on year, I'll definitely see a spending cut next year!

You could be right. I haven't looked at the numbers closely enough to see whether they are actual cuts in spending or if they are reductions in spending increases. But if your belief is simply that they are not truly reductions in spending because spending is inflated well, that is simply your opinion. Or do you think it's responsible to pay for things you buy, like homeland security departments and wars?

Regardless, it's still a compromise no matter how much you spin it.

[kalm]

I would if that was my assertion. But is wasn't, so I won't.

Democrats have put over a trillion in spending cuts on the table. Perhaps I missed the part where any Republican has suggested tax increases.

The problem is out of control spending. Decreased revenue is principally due to a depressed economy. Fix the economy, not increase taxes, to grow revenue. Raising taxes with further depress the economy.

This isn't rocket science, Kalm.

I really do try to understand why Donks knee-jerk to increasing taxes, but over and over, it keeps coming back to political expediency. Increased taxes=increased govt. spending=increased entitlement programs=increased entitlement recepient vote for Donks.

It always come back to political survival/career protection.


Vote
Them
All
Out

Whether you like it or not, government comes with a price, depressed economy notwithstanding. I'm cool with a reduction in unneccessary spending. And I'm glad you didn't imply that tax cuts lead to growth.

[BlueHen86]

I hate defending the Democrats or Obama, but 1/3 of the bailout being tax cuts was a compromise, further entrenching for-profit health insurance companies was a compromise, and extending the Bush tax cuts was a compromise. And that's not to mention the wild swing to the right in general that both parties have made over the past couple of decades. If they were alive today, Teddy Roosevelt would be Green Party and Eisenhower would causcus with the congressional progressive caucus.

Taxes are at the lowest rate since the 1920's. TTBF was right about Grover Norquist.

I agree. He is a big problem. His no rasing tax pledge doesn't solve our problems and his refusal to allow for compromise is wrong. Our system needs compromise to work, people who dosn't see that should not be allowed to have a voice.

He's not the only problem, and maybe not the biggest problem, but he is a big problem.

[GannonFan]

Spending cuts aren't the same as reducing the rate of spending increases, especially when you base them on already inflated spending benchmarks. If that were the case, I'll tell my wife I'm going to cut my spending next year, but only after I buy a new car, a new TV, etc, this year. Year on year, I'll definitely see a spending cut next year!

You could be right. I haven't looked at the numbers closely enough to see whether they are actual cuts in spending or if they are reductions in spending increases. But if your belief is simply that they are not truly reductions in spending because spending is inflated well, that is simply your opinion. Or do you think it's responsible to pay for things you buy, like homeland security departments and wars?

Regardless, it's still a compromise no matter how much you spin it.

If the increased spending was just due to Homeland Security or wars, then you'd have a point. However, we're not up to spending of 24%-25% of GDP (about 5%-6% more than normal) because of Homeland Security or wars. And as we pull back from Iraq and hopefully soon Afghanistan, that spending isn't even projected to drop - at all - so obviously the spending is being done elsewhere. Revenue is starting to come back into normal historical averages, especially as the economy slowly recovers. Can we and should we do more there? Possibly. But there's much more spending that has to come down compared to how much revenue should tick up - it's not a 50/50 thing, and not even all that close to it.

[kalm]

You could be right. I haven't looked at the numbers closely enough to see whether they are actual cuts in spending or if they are reductions in spending increases. But if your belief is simply that they are not truly reductions in spending because spending is inflated well, that is simply your opinion. Or do you think it's responsible to pay for things you buy, like homeland security departments and wars?

Regardless, it's still a compromise no matter how much you spin it.

If the increased spending was just due to Homeland Security or wars, then you'd have a point. However, we're not up to spending of 24%-25% of GDP (about 5%-6% more than normal) because of Homeland Security or wars. And as we pull back from Iraq and hopefully soon Afghanistan, that spending isn't even projected to drop - at all - so obviously the spending is being done elsewhere. Revenue is starting to come back into normal historical averages, especially as the economy slowly recovers. Can we and should we do more there? Possibly. But there's much more spending that has to come down compared to how much revenue should tick up - it's not a 50/50 thing, and not even all that close to it.

Of course they aren't the only cause and I've conceded that countless times before. But they are big expenditures that needed to be paid for and we tried to raise that revenue through cutting taxes which the CBO estimated cost another trillion, so...

You see what I did there Gannon? It's called compromise. You should go explain to your boys in the GOP

[bluehenbillk]

You can't just cut your way out.

You can't just tax your way out.

I like what Obama actually said yesterday - he's not going to let Congress backtrack on the automatic cuts yesterday - he said he would veto any attempt for them to do it.

[Ibanez]

If the increased spending was just due to Homeland Security or wars, then you'd have a point. However, we're not up to spending of 24%-25% of GDP (about 5%-6% more than normal) because of Homeland Security or wars. And as we pull back from Iraq and hopefully soon Afghanistan, that spending isn't even projected to drop - at all - so obviously the spending is being done elsewhere. Revenue is starting to come back into normal historical averages, especially as the economy slowly recovers. Can we and should we do more there? Possibly. But there's much more spending that has to come down compared to how much revenue should tick up - it's not a 50/50 thing, and not even all that close to it.

Of course they aren't the only cause and I've conceded that countless times before. But they are big expenditures that needed to be paid for and we tried to raise that revenue through cutting taxes which the CBO estimated cost another trillion, so...

You see what I did there Gannon? It's called compromise. You should go explain to your boys in the GDP.

I'm not sure about the GDP, but the GOP and the Democrats need to forget thier sacred cows. Cut into entitlements, raise taxes. We have to curb wasteful spending, go without some services (perhaps get people off of the teet) increase our revenue becauase face it, people will still earn money, companies will still research innovations and hire and report profits. This lie that the businesses won't hire is pure bullshit. Both parties need to compromise. What cuts to entitlements have the Democrats offered?

"Both parties chose their own electoral livelihoods over the good of the country, and it is outright shameful. ... This might be the most self-serving, mediocre and uncaring set of legislators in Congress in the last 50 years~ CNN

I'm not suprised our COngress couldn't pull it together. However, I see a great oppurtunity for Obama.

[Ibanez]

You can't just cut your way out.

You can't just tax your way out.

I like what Obama actually said yesterday - he's not going to let Congress backtrack on the automatic cuts yesterday - he said he would veto any attempt for them to do it.

That's smart. Congress gets away with too much. I'm already drafting a letter to my congressmen.

[kalm]

Of course they aren't the only cause and I've conceded that countless times before. But they are big expenditures that needed to be paid for and we tried to raise that revenue through cutting taxes which the CBO estimated cost another trillion, so...

You see what I did there Gannon? It's called compromise. You should go explain to your boys in the GDP.

I'm not sure about the GDP, but the GOP and the Democrats need to forget thier sacred cows. Cut into entitlements, raise taxes. We have to curb wasteful spending, go without some services (perhaps get people off of the teet) increase our revenue becauase face it, people will still earn money, companies will still research innovations and hire and report profits. This lie that the businesses won't hire is pure bullshit. Both parties need to compromise. What cuts to entitlements have the Democrats offered?

"Both parties chose their own electoral livelihoods over the good of the country, and it is outright shameful. ... This might be the most self-serving, mediocre and uncaring set of legislators in Congress in the last 50 years~ CNN

I'm not suprised our COngress couldn't pull it together. However, I see a great oppurtunity for Obama.

Damn autocorrect.

And the Dems have offered cuts to medicare and medicaid as part of their proposal. In fact their offering $3 trillion in cuts to $1.3 trillion in tax increases. More cutting than taxing seems like a reasonable compromise.

[LeadBolt]

So to recap your argument, change in your direction is good, change in the opposite direction is bad...

no.

to recap my argument: stability is preferable to chaos, change can be good - but should be measured and any large changes should take time to avoid shocks to the system, while it's easy and convenient to say "throw them all out" such a sentiment I believe ignores the consequences of such thinking.

while I believe wave elections are fine... they are not desirable every two years - no matter the direction.

I agree that government policy inconsistency is hurting the country and that change should be measured and thought out, but that is not the same as consistency of continuing to elect the same politicos. (BTW, you won't find posts where I was saying to throw them all out, but nice try at planting a red herring.)

The other thing that is hurting the country is the lack of self-control by the government in spending and pandering. Over the last 20 years, government spending has outpaced economic growth on average by approximately 1% per year. Like gaining weight a little weight each year over a long period of time, the compounding effect that occurs has left us in poor fiscal condition. We need to go on a diet by first cutting spending in absolute terms and then fixing the corrupt taxation system that we have currently inplace.

You make a valid point that change should be measured and thought out to avoid shock to the system but, why did the administration insist that the health care bill had to be passed in such a rush that members of Congress didn't have time to read, digest and debate it thoroughly?

[Ibanez]

I'm not sure about the GDP, but the GOP and the Democrats need to forget thier sacred cows. Cut into entitlements, raise taxes. We have to curb wasteful spending, go without some services (perhaps get people off of the teet) increase our revenue becauase face it, people will still earn money, companies will still research innovations and hire and report profits. This lie that the businesses won't hire is pure bullshit. Both parties need to compromise. What cuts to entitlements have the Democrats offered?



I'm not suprised our COngress couldn't pull it together. However, I see a great oppurtunity for Obama.

Damn autocorrect.

And the Dems have offered cuts to medicare and medicaid as part of their proposal. In fact their offering $3 trillion in cuts to $1.3 trillion in tax increases. More cutting than taxing seems like a reasonable compromise.

So they want to cut from services that assist (for the majority) the elderly who live on a fixed income (for the majority). That's awesome. I agree that sacred cows should be hit but why don't we take from those that CAN work and SHOULD work? Unemployment benefits is one area. Lets definetly get someone to close the loopholes that allow GE to pay $0 on $57 Billion. We need deep, true cuts that will hurt.

Besides, cutting and taxing is only part of the equation. I can cut spending from one area but if i just spend it somewhere else, I haven't done anything. Cut money, Save that Money, Raise Money and Invest Money.

[GannonFan]

If the increased spending was just due to Homeland Security or wars, then you'd have a point. However, we're not up to spending of 24%-25% of GDP (about 5%-6% more than normal) because of Homeland Security or wars. And as we pull back from Iraq and hopefully soon Afghanistan, that spending isn't even projected to drop - at all - so obviously the spending is being done elsewhere. Revenue is starting to come back into normal historical averages, especially as the economy slowly recovers. Can we and should we do more there? Possibly. But there's much more spending that has to come down compared to how much revenue should tick up - it's not a 50/50 thing, and not even all that close to it.

Of course they aren't the only cause and I've conceded that countless times before. But they are big expenditures that needed to be paid for and we tried to raise that revenue through cutting taxes which the CBO estimated cost another trillion, so...

You see what I did there Gannon? It's called compromise. You should go explain to your boys in the GOP

Slowing down spending increases (or just cutting back some spending from programs that have jacked up their spending in the past 3 years) is not cutting spending. If we're spending significantly more now than we did 3 years ago we haven't cut anything. I have no problem with tax increases, I certainly think they could move up a notch or two, but when they aren't coupled with any discreet spending cuts (and again, instead, only decreases in the rate of spending increases) then it's not going to work. We can't spend 25% of GDP - that's just not realistic. And right now, we're looking at that for the next decade or so. And we can't raise taxes enough to offset that.

And the reality of this is, this isn't just a tax and spend issue. The economy is floundering and really it has only somewhat to do with spending and even less with taxing.

[Ibanez]

Of course they aren't the only cause and I've conceded that countless times before. But they are big expenditures that needed to be paid for and we tried to raise that revenue through cutting taxes which the CBO estimated cost another trillion, so...

You see what I did there Gannon? It's called compromise. You should go explain to your boys in the GOP

Slowing down spending increases (or just cutting back some spending from programs that have jacked up their spending in the past 3 years) is not cutting spending. If we're spending significantly more now than we did 3 years ago we haven't cut anything. I have no problem with tax increases, I certainly think they could move up a notch or two, but when they aren't coupled with any discreet spending cuts (and again, instead, only decreases in the rate of spending increases) then it's not going to work. We can't spend 25% of GDP - that's just not realistic. And right now, we're looking at that for the next decade or so. And we can't raise taxes enough to offset that.

And the reality of this is, this isn't just a tax and spend issue. The economy is floundering and really it has only somewhat to do with spending and even less with taxing.

This. I agree with you GF.

[kalm]

Of course they aren't the only cause and I've conceded that countless times before. But they are big expenditures that needed to be paid for and we tried to raise that revenue through cutting taxes which the CBO estimated cost another trillion, so...

You see what I did there Gannon? It's called compromise. You should go explain to your boys in the GOP

Slowing down spending increases (or just cutting back some spending from programs that have jacked up their spending in the past 3 years) is not cutting spending. If we're spending significantly more now than we did 3 years ago we haven't cut anything. I have no problem with tax increases, I certainly think they could move up a notch or two, but when they aren't coupled with any discreet spending cuts (and again, instead, only decreases in the rate of spending increases) then it's not going to work. We can't spend 25% of GDP - that's just not realistic. And right now, we're looking at that for the next decade or so. And we can't raise taxes enough to offset that.

And the reality of this is, this isn't just a tax and spend issue. The economy is floundering and really it has only somewhat to do with spending and even less with taxing.

I can live with this analysis.

[Ivytalk]

Slowing down spending increases (or just cutting back some spending from programs that have jacked up their spending in the past 3 years) is not cutting spending. If we're spending significantly more now than we did 3 years ago we haven't cut anything. I have no problem with tax increases, I certainly think they could move up a notch or two, but when they aren't coupled with any discreet spending cuts (and again, instead, only decreases in the rate of spending increases) then it's not going to work. We can't spend 25% of GDP - that's just not realistic. And right now, we're looking at that for the next decade or so. And we can't raise taxes enough to offset that.

And the reality of this is, this isn't just a tax and spend issue. The economy is floundering and really it has only somewhat to do with spending and even less with taxing.

I can live with this analysis.

Now that you two lovebirds have found common ground, why don't we start a new thread?

[Pwns]

The one thing most responsible for making our budget unsustainable over the past 15 years is increased healthcare and prescription drug costs, which is a component of SS and medicare costs. And forcing healthy people to buy insurance to help pay for the bloated costs is not the answer.

We just plain don't f***ing have enough doctors and nurses, and with obesity-related costs expected to rise and the baby boomers getting to retirement, the healthcare situation and the budget are just going to get worse. The feds don't seem to give a s*** about Latin American immigrants with no job skills and education pouring into the country, but can we recruit people from places like China and India to be doctors and engineers? Hell, no. They'll take our jobs!

Also, we need to be helping companies (especially the Tech, aerospace, and automotive industries) with R&D because they can't afford those things and we risk falling behind countries that do subsidize R&D if we don't.

[Wedgebuster]

I can live with this analysis.

Now that you two lovebirds have found common ground, why don't we start a new thread?

Yeah, this is getting gay.