Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think a good first step is to do away with the Iowa Straw Poll's early dominance. It has proved to be nothing but a time consuming, costly, and inaccurate beauty contest. And the number of Republican primary debates was ridiculous. There may be a place for such debates, but they should happen much later, when strong front runners have emerged.
The fact is: If we intend to do away with our budget deficits and retain the level of government services we are all accustomed to, taxes will have to rise to some former level, period. The only fair tax increases are those that hurt all economic levels equally, period. The sooner conservatives reach that conclusion, the better it is.
It's exactly like needing to go to the dentist. Put it off and it will only hurt all the more.
I'd prefer to get rid of the excessive government spending, then work on the revenue side. When you're doing a budget, you cut spending first, then worry about where to make extra money.
I'd prefer to get rid of the excessive government spending, then work on the revenue side. When you're doing a budget, you cut spending first, then worry about where to make extra money.
Government spending boosts the economy in a downturn and reducing the deficit does not. I agree that excessive spending must be cut, but the trick is to be careful and selective in doing the cuts. Big cuts will have a lot of unanticipated consequences, and could stall the recovery.
Big cuts in the deficit will also stall us out, and would most likely dump us back in the 2009 pit again. Trimming both very carefully would be good, though.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,458,803 times
Reputation: 6670
"Expect Senate Republicans to insert themselves in those 2014 primaries when Democrats attempt to influence the GOP nominating process as they did in the 2012 Missouri Republican contest that produced Akin."
So now GOP neanderthals like Akin are the Democrats' fault?!!
Government spending boosts the economy in a downturn and reducing the deficit does not. I agree that excessive spending must be cut, but the trick is to be careful and selective in doing the cuts. Big cuts will have a lot of unanticipated consequences, and could stall the recovery.
Big cuts in the deficit will also stall us out, and would most likely dump us back in the 2009 pit again. Trimming both very carefully would be good, though.
Right on the money. NEVER EVER cut the budget during a recession or depression. Don't also do it the way Keynes advocates as well with low interest rates for bankers. You need to do an FDR and have a CCC, CWA and PWA. Put people to work. These are not make work jobs, we desperately need them even today with our crumbling infrastructure. Despite what the wingnuts and Paulites say, public sector jobs are REAL jobs. Those people pay income taxes and payroll taxes too, and they spawn, or re-spawn, private sector employment because people will want to make money off of them.
When your local economy has collapsed, and the only jobs left are public sector, the worst you can do is cut the budget and lay off the rest of the workers propping up your area. Better to have 8% unemployed than 16% unemployed. Also, having a budget surplus does not create jobs, either. Austerity is not this magic bullet that people think it is that if you cut the budget, jobs will start sprouting up. Never has happened, and never will. Ask Heinrich Brüning how cutting the budget worked out. Government budgets are not the same as the kitchen table budget. The only time to cut the government budget are when times are good and tax receipts are high
So now GOP neanderthals like Akin are the Democrats' fault?!!
They certainly had a hand using DSCC cash to promote Akin as the most ideologically right wing candidate in the primary while Brunner and Steelman blew all their money attacking each other. Obviously it was primary voters who nominated Akin, but Democrats pushed him as the ideal choice.
They certainly had a hand using DSCC cash to promote Akin as the most ideologically right wing candidate in the primary while Brunner and Steelman blew all their money attacking each other. Obviously it was primary voters who nominated Akin, but Democrats pushed him as the ideal choice.
Only a weak party can have a cash infusion from opponents nominate a radical fringe cannon fooder candidate like Akin.
As a Democrat I would be more than happy for the GOP to put all tea party members out
If you want 2 competitive parties, that desire makes sense. If you want easy DEmocratic wins, you want the TP to be part of the GOP. They have destroyed the GOP's ability to compete for POTUS and the Senate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
