Possible short term positive, guaranteed long term negative.

[winsor 236]

We have a spending problem
Not a revenue problem

[chutem 0]

What is (according to the IRS) the lowest yearly reported income in the 1% of all earners bracket?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Maybe you can change my mind about the revenue side of things. How much are you going to cut spending and where to not only balance the budget, but also provide a reasonable pay back period for our debt?

So we have a body on the operating (budget) table, he's out of shape (debt), and the doctor (congress, president) has "accidentally" nicked a major artery (spending). We need blood (revenue) and exercise (long term revenue)

The current doctor is asking for a LOT of blood right now so can keep cutting into more arteries. He thinks it's fun and it allows him to charge more for his services.

SO FIRST - we need a new doctor, period, he's purposely making things worse, and if the patient gets more blood, he will purposely cut more arteries.

Once we get a new doctor - first you stop the bleeding (spending). Then you recover the patient (the bare minimum of increased revenue).

get him out of post ops, and recovered - prove to us that we now have a responsible doctor that doesn't damage the body intentionally - then we can talk about proper diet and exercise


I don't think massive taxing with a congress and president that are addicted to massive spending of much more of what we take in regardless of how much we take in will do a single thing. They won't cut spending. That culture needs to change or even taking all the money will just make it worse.

Borrow more, or tax more, it doesn't matter - for every added dollar we take in, they'll increase spending by more than a dollar.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

No cut useless programs and live within your means .

Defense programs the Pentagon didn't ask for and didn't want but were pushed by politicians would seem to top any list.

Next - don't start optional wars.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[chutem 0]

Quote

Quote

Maybe you can change my mind about the revenue side of things. How much are you going to cut spending and where to not only balance the budget, but also provide a reasonable pay back period for our debt?

So we have a body on the operating (budget) table, he's out of shape (debt), and the doctor (congress, president) has "accidentally" nicked a major artery (spending). We need blood (revenue) and exercise (long term revenue)

The current doctor is asking for a LOT of blood right now so can keep cutting into more arteries. He thinks it's fun and it allows him to charge more for his services.

SO FIRST - we need a new doctor, period, he's purposely making things worse, and if the patient gets more blood, he will purposely cut more arteries.

Once we get a new doctor - first you stop the bleeding (spending). Then you recover the patient (the bare minimum of increased revenue).

get him out of post ops, and recovered - prove to us that we now have a responsible doctor that doesn't damage the body intentionally - then we can talk about proper diet and exercise


I don't think massive taxing with a congress and president that are addicted to massive spending of much more of what we take in regardless of how much we take in will do a single thing. They won't cut spending. That culture needs to change or even taking all the money will just make it worse.

Borrow more, or tax more, it doesn't matter - for every added dollar we take in, they'll increase spending by more than a dollar.

Agreed, I just don't think there are enough places we as a country are willing cut the budget to solve our problem. I would love to be wrong on this. I don't want to pay more taxes. I also don't want to leave my kids screwed financialy.

James

[billvon 3,120]

>SO FIRST - we need a new doctor, period, he's purposely making things
>worse, and if the patient gets more blood, he will purposely cut more
>arteries.

So you get rid of the doctor, the patient dies, you get a new doctor, and everything is great! Undertakers and gravediggers get jobs, economy is stimulated, recession ends.

Or you quickly get enough blood into him to keep him alive, then you get a new doctor. Patient lives! Boo! He's probably a drain on society anyway.