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 do think the scope of the government has been expanded since Obama took office.
And with declining revenues they are spreading themselves quite thin.
I do think the scope of the government has been expanded since Obama took office.
And with declining revenues they are spreading themselves quite thin.
You know what I find just funny is the fact that you said "themselves". Its us, everyone is feeling this one.
Even if you buy that, yes, we had to bail out the banks or risk the fallout of all financial institutions, and bring down entire markets to depression levels of GDP decline, then why and the blue hell wouldn't you break the banks up?
If they were truly "to big to fail", then why the hell weren't they reduced to levels that were small enough to fail?
Isn't that the definition of monopoly? Didn't it used to be the conservative thing to do to break up monopolies? And breaking them up into smaller pieces allows for more growth. The more complicated the system the more parts it takes to run it.
But neither party did the right thing, both parties bailed them out, and haven't done anything for the rest of us. They've all been increasing military spending and keeping unfunded tax cuts.
I do think the scope of the government has been expanded since Obama took office.
And with declining revenues they are spreading themselves quite thin.
Great format illustrating what we probably know but haven't seen laid out
The Obama administration may have lowered the deficit, but they haven't set us on a path to pay it off. They had two years of Democratically controlled congress, and did nothing to help the real long term problems, and increasing military spending all the time.
WTF?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
The Republicans, dating back to even before W, has been cutting taxes, without real spending cuts. Thats a spending increase, plain and simple.
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
So please, I implore you, don't stand on that partisan soap box. Realize that both parties have been wrong, understand that we will have to raise taxes, and have to decrease spending, and there are no ifs, ands, or buts about it .
I think there should be revenue increases other than tax increases. One way to start would be to close tax loopholes. Would boost revenue and would give all businesses a fairer shot to compete in the free market. A win, win. And of course I agree that there need to be massive decreases is spending.
Yes, both parties have been wrong. I'm not a very partisan person, I simply have a certain opinion and that's it. That opinion is never based on ideology.
So we have to let tax cuts expire, and raise taxes on money that isn't creating jobs, while we massively cut government spending.
I lean right, and I believe a lot more people would go for that IF they implement massive spending cuts FIRST, along with mandating the tax increases end after X amount of years. I simply do not trust handing Congress more money first as they will assuredly just use it to keep their circus going and not cut anything meaningful. If we get serious about ending deficits, and paying down our debt, I will kick in more money. Until I see that proof however, I will fight adamently against it. By massive cuts, I mean returning to a 2 trillion a year budget, or less.
Paul Krugman once again debunks the right-wing's talking point. The reason why government is at a higher percentage of GDP is because of the dire economy. More people are relying on government assistance.
Paul Krugman once again debunks the right-wing's talking point. The reason why government is at a higher percentage of GDP is because of the dire economy. More people are relying on government assistance.
Maybe Obama isn't responsible for much of the growth in government but if either you or Krugman would take a peek at what has been done toward the implementation of Obamacare you may find that the number of government jobs needed to get us this near implementation is huge. I am referring to the writing of rules for the monster when it leaps upon us. Thousands and thousands of rules and regulations have been written already and there will be more to come. I think much of the reason for all this is to make the law???
more and more solid when it hits us.
Maybe you are Krugman could look into the number of people hired by HHS for nothing more than writing these rules and regs and how many of those people will be kept on when there is no longer a need for them.
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.
Yes, federal government does pass down unfunded mandates to the state. 
