David –You’re not saying my “ideas are wrong or
bad?” Ok. But just to be clear I AM saying that Republican ideas are both
wrong AND bad.Solyndra? Well, not all investments work out. So
what? That means we should not invest? I disagree.Cash for clunkers
was a bad idea? Maybe so. But that’s relative. Was it a bad idea compared
to say . . . declaring war on Iraq based on phony claims of WMD’s ready to
destroy America? How many trillion dollars is that going to end up wasting?Reducing necessary spending, and preventing necessary investments is
wrong and bad.Helping the rich get richer at the EXPENSE of everyone
else is wrong too.Republican ideas are both wrong AND bad.By constantly keeping America and Americans from achieving the success we
deserve, Right Wingers are in fact America’s Enemy Number ONE.
GaryO,gross federal debt increased more in BO's first 3-1/2 years
than in all of bush's 8 years, and more in BO's worst year than during
the entire Reagan presidency, and you really want to make comparisons?
HAHAHAHAHAdon't forget that Reagan had a dem house, where
spending bills originate. BO's deficits have reduced since he got a GOP
house.No, history does NOT side with dems on deficit control.
Immigrants would be mostly low wage, low tax payers. And, with unemployment
still high, where will their jobs come from in the first place? No way that
amounts to 100s of billions of tax revenue. Plus, the plan based on a 10 year
1.5 trillion would add over 100 billion a year needed. This, and no expected
harm to growth? What's the definition of insanity?, doing the same thing
over and over....................
GaryOFor Republicans, like me, we feel the opposite. But I
understand your point and it is a good one: that investment and additional
government spending in infrastructure, research and sustainable energy will keep
the nation competitive.My concern, and I suppose many others feel
the same way, is that government has not shown itself trustworthy of additional
revenues. They increase spending commensurate (actually above and beyond) with
its increases in revenue. Likewise, spending has been spurious, for example
awarding cash for clunkers (bad idea), and investing in companies that go
bankrupt (Solyndra). There is evidence that Obama rewarded friends with tax
payer dollars invested in their companies. I'm not saying your
ideas are wrong or bad. I would simply prefer to have the government first show
steps toward reduced spending. In my mind that doesn't mean arrive at a
balanced budget before increasing taxes. Rather, reduce spending and then raise
revenue to mitigate draconian spending cuts (that would be required without
increased revenue). These are not just my ideas, but also the
proposals of Simpson-Bowles, Obama's appointed commission.
David - It does not make sense to focus on reducing spending first.
We need to invest in infrastructure, which would both make this nation more
competitive and get people working again. The nation needs to invest like
businesses do.When Henry Ford went broke with his first endeavor, he
got a loan, invested in employees and infrastructure and made history. If he had
focused on reducing spending first, he would not have gotten anywhere.Of course, we should not spend money frivolously, but the nation must spend
money to offer good governance.We should be spending even more money
investing in infrastructure, research, and sustainable energy to keep this
nation competitive. Doing so would also put a whole lot of people back to work.
Obama's jobs' bill of 2011 would have done just that, but the
Republicans shot it down.From what I can see, the Democrats
consistently make great proposals and work hard to make good things happen; and
the Republicans routinely and reflexively shoot down every workable solution.Republicans don't seem to have much to offer of any value.And
do we really need to spend more on our military than the next 15 nations
Hey 4601 -You think Democrats are all about "tax and
spend."That may be, but Republicans are about "don't
tax and spend even more" . . . Like the Great Right Wing Hero Ronald Reagan
who TRIPLED the national debt, and his devotee, GW Bush, who more than DOUBLED
it once again.The difference is that Democrats are all about
responsibility and Republicans are fiscally irresponsible. If a government is
going to spend, then it should have an adequate revenue base.Reagan
was completely irresponsible, and Republicans still idolize him for being so
irresponsible. He reduced taxes for the highest earners on the assumption that
the highest earners would just let their incomes trickle down to everyone else .
. . kind of like taking the first shower and using the same dirty water for
successive layers of underlings. . . . Beautiful in theory (ugh),
but it doesn't work at all.The very responsible President and
mulitasker Bill Clinton on the other hand, raised taxes for the highest earners
a little closer to what they should be, and he balanced the budget for several
consecutive years.So you see, it's much better to tax and spend
than it is to not tax and spend.
GaryO,The Treasury received just under $2.5 Trillion in 2012.
That's a lot of money.But we spent over $3.5 Trillion.
That's a lot of money too.The total debt is over $17.5
Trillion. We add $270 billion to the debt...daily. We pay $200
billion annually...on interest for the federal deficit. That's money that
isn't going towards education, roads, defense, or unemployment benefits.
That's the price to borrow money.Some project that we will
spend $1 Trillion annually...on interest by 2020. Balancing the
budget and reducing debt is tough but everyone says it must be done.Republicans propose reducing government spending to balance and pay down debt.
Democrats want to increase taxes and increasing spending.Neither is
easy. Obama commissioned a group to come up with a plan. They recommended a
mix of both spending cuts and tax increases. That's what I favor.I would like to see reduced spending first before I trust the government with
more tax money.
We must learn to live on less income but not the government! NOOOOO!
How creative of the Democrats - tax and spend, subsidize their voter base and
have no plan for long term industrial growth to provide middle class jobs.
Central planning, class warfare, omnipotent government and demonizing success,
it sounds like Venezuela or Cuba's economic plan. The second step is to
complain about the other side of the isle being obstructive.
Revenue is the ticket. It's silly to think that debts can be paid without
revenue.The popular Republican mantra of "It's not about
revenue, it's about spending" is silly.It's about
revenue AND spending.We had much more revenue when the highest
earners were taxed considerably more.But Reagonomics (where coddled
high earners were supposed to let wealth trickle down and improve the economy
for everyone) has proven to be a complete MYTH . . . a fantasy that Rush
Limbaugh still tells his gullible fans. We need REVENUE.And that
means taxing high earners the way they were taxed back when we actually balanced
the budget.Republican fantasies are nothing but fantasies.
That's why they're called fantasies.