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.
You reduce gov't spending gradually while raising the other factors in the equation.
Which is exactly what we democrats want to do, while modestly (3% points) raising taxes on the richest of the rich to help pay down the deficit. Tax rates on the wealthiest Americans are currently very low compared to historic rates.
The president offered Boehner a $4 trillion dollar deal over 10 years ($3 trillion in cuts paired with $1 trillion in increased revenue through a modest tax hike on the wealthy), and Boehner didn't take it. Among those $3 trillion in cuts were some cuts to social safety net programs, which caused many Democrats to be upset with Obama for offering it, but Obama was willing to do it. The thing Obama will not do is lower the deficit solely on the backs of the poor by cutting their programs while the rich sacrifice nothing. If you cut social safety net programs, you also have to raise some taxes on the rich, so that everyone has some skin in the game. It just isn't right to hurt those who can least afford it, while demanding nothing from those who can most afford it.
Very few republicans have come up with austerity measures. Decreasing the increase is not austerity. To think so is absurd.
I guess you never heard of the Ryan Plan, that proposes tax cuts that would cost $4.6 trillion over the next decade relative to current policy -- that is, relative even to making the Bush tax cuts permanent and cuts 14 million off of Medicaid. (The Urban Institute, working off the very similar plan Ryan unveiled last year, puts it at between 14 and 27 million people losing Medicaid.) It also cuts deeply into Medicare and Social Security.
This is the crux of the problem with Romney. He is a smart guy, but his party is under the control of a bunch of idiots. Romney, himself, would probably be a decent president in time. But on his coattails are hanging all the tea baggers and evangelists and anti-government kooks. I think he will be unable to keep them under control as evidenced by his constantly needing to pander to them during the election process. If it were just Romney versus Obama I would have to give Romney a strong look. But it is not, and Obama is getting my vote.
Don't forget the clueless social nuts who call themselves conservative.
So Romney's a liberal because he doesn't want to cut $1 trillion in his first year? Well I guess I too am a liberal then, who knew. And I guess the Ryan budget is a progressive plan, didn't know that either. I guess both sides should come together and vote for Romney then since he's a liberal, and by the definition posted here, so are most of us Republicans.
Eventually, you will have to pay your creditors back. If it shows that you are unable and unwilling to pay back your loans, your line of credit will stop, and the ride is over. Printing more money while saying ********* I have the printing press, will send us to 3rd World purchasing power in a very short amount of time.
Our country will always be in debt and we will always have credit lines. #rd world purchasing power? No way! America has tons of untapped wealth. It's about cheap money and debt maintenance. That said, I believe the current borrowing levels are irresponsible and unsustainable.
The GOP tries to paint the debt situation as if were unsolvable. Yet, the nation was much more in debt, adjusted for inflation, than it is today and we were able to pay our debts.
It is interesting that conservatives say they are worried about the debt but refuse to raise taxes from the lowest point in 80 years.
Which is exactly what we democrats want to do, while modestly (3% points) raising taxes on the richest of the rich to help pay down the deficit. Tax rates on the wealthiest Americans are currently very low compared to historic rates.
The president offered Boehner a $4 trillion dollar deal over 10 years ($3 trillion in cuts paired with $1 trillion in increased revenue through a modest tax hike on the wealthy), and Boehner didn't take it. Among those $3 trillion in cuts were some cuts to social safety net programs, which caused many Democrats to be upset with Obama for offering it, but Obama was willing to do it. The thing Obama will not do is lower the deficit solely on the backs of the poor by cutting their programs while the rich sacrifice nothing. If you cut social safety net programs, you also have to raise some taxes on the rich, so that everyone has some skin in the game. It just isn't right to hurt those who can least afford it, while demanding nothing from those who can most afford it.
Here's the problem. The equation I posted is the grouper. There are several components that go into each variable. If you increase taxes you reduce consumption, you invariably will reduce investment especially if the taxes are on capital gains. You reduce these things GDP goes down. There are no simple answers. The GOP maniacally cutting spending without any revenue increases will not help matters. Neither will the Dems refusal to make any meaningful spending cuts while raising taxes. Balanced approaches are needed.
I'm more in line with the GOP because they are beginning to come around on the spending part. While the Dems are still adamantly for the Welfare State.
But he has an (R) next to his name, so that means it's ok and the right wing goons will support him.
Yep. Mitt Romney's best hope is that the right hates Obama so much that they'll turn out to vote for a guy they don't trust or like.
Romney suffers from not being a radical moron, which is totally unacceptable to the modern GOP base.
But, he's probably right that the GOP base does hate Obama so much that they'll vote for him. Just look at the posts here. The same posters who have screamed about deep deep cuts being necessary right now and how government spending necessarily cripples the private sector are now saying that no, they actually don't believe that and agree with Romney (and hence also Obama, though they'll never acknowledge it).
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.
