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.
Do you think eventually, we will see a "grand bargain?" Almost every economist agrees we need a combination of spending cuts, more tax revenue, and entitlement reforms. Will the far left and far right agree to negotiate and actually get things done? I'm a liberal, but I agree we can't keep running up debt and we have to cut spending and reform entitlements. That said, we do need new tax revenue. At some point, conservatives have to choose between their ideology or actually reducing debt.
We had a chance at a Grand Bargain during the early days of this administration. Bohener was talking to the White House about that very thing...until the House membership got wind of it. They won't compromise with ANYBODY, not even their own party leadership.
Their sole function in life is to prevent a second Obama term and the country be damned.
But, hey! Let's elect more of them so Congress can do even less! Yeah...that's the ticket!
Obama dropped the ball not running with simpson-bowles.
It would've put the R's on the defensive as Obama would show a tangible plan.
However, obama showed no backbone in taking the bi-partisan comissions recs (which were reasonable IMO) and I believe his circle felt that if they backed it, then the R's would use that as the 'end point' on the left and force Obama to come further right to 'meet them'.
There might be some political truths in that, but the populous would be best served if Obama had ran with Simpson-bowles and the R's agreed to it.
Both sides will argue that now is not the time for (either cuts or tax increases). They are both morons and we will continue sending these morons to D.C.
Obama dropped the ball not running with simpson-bowles.
It would've put the R's on the defensive as Obama would show a tangible plan.
However, obama showed no backbone in taking the bi-partisan comissions recs (which were reasonable IMO) and I believe his circle felt that if they backed it, then the R's would use that as the 'end point' on the left and force Obama to come further right to 'meet them'.
There might be some political truths in that, but the populous would be best served if Obama had ran with Simpson-bowles and the R's agreed to it.
I agree. Obama should have endorsed simpson/bowles.
Do you think eventually, we will see a "grand bargain?" Almost every economist agrees we need a combination of spending cuts, more tax revenue, and entitlement reforms. Will the far left and far right agree to negotiate and actually get things done? I'm a liberal, but I agree we can't keep running up debt and we have to cut spending and reform entitlements. That said, we do need new tax revenue. At some point, conservatives have to choose between their ideology or actually reducing debt.
Nope-
The government cannot control itself; give them a dollar and they will spend a dollar and a half. We need a balanced budget amendment. Without constraints, politicians will not cut ANYWHERE.
If we get a balanced budget amendment (unlikely), A VAT tax would help to chip away at the debt. However, a large percentage of that would have to be earmarked for debt reduction, not stolen.
The government cannot control itself; give them a dollar and they will spend a dollar and a half. We need a balanced budget amendment. Without constraints, politicians will not cut ANYWHERE.
If we get a balanced budget amendment (unlikely), A VAT tax would help to chip away at the debt. However, a large percentage of that would have to be earmarked for debt reduction, not stolen.
If the government spends money, it's not stolen, it's gone out into the private sector somewhere. A balanced budget amendment may work if done over a long time and one that allowed for spending cuts and tax increases, would be one I could support.
The government cannot control itself; give them a dollar and they will spend a dollar and a half. We need a balanced budget amendment. Without constraints, politicians will not cut ANYWHERE.
If we get a balanced budget amendment (unlikely), A VAT tax would help to chip away at the debt. However, a large percentage of that would have to be earmarked for debt reduction, not stolen.
I will agree to BBA if if included wartime/military action spending.
I.E. if you are going to engage in military action, pay it as you go along/upfront and not on the credit card...you'll see the electorate shut down engagements extremely fast.
I will agree to BBA if if included wartime/military action spending.
I.E. if you are going to engage in military action, pay it as you go along/upfront and not on the credit card...you'll see the electorate shut down engagements extremely fast.
I think we are still waiting for the Iraqi oil that was supposed to pay for the war.
I think we are still waiting for the Iraqi oil that was supposed to pay for the war.
Did we ever get it?
LOL
the iraqi oil that the chinese are doing deals for?
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.
