Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Massive deficits with no end in sight. Assuming that the economy does turn around, we would need to double GDP without increasing goverenment spending in order to get back to a balanced budget without raising taxes. If we can't do this, the only other option will be to double taxes.
I disagree, we have at least one other option and it is the one that we are currently using. We will simply continue to pile the debt upon the shoulders of our great grandchildren. So far that option seems to be working. Why should things change?
Now, that is not saying that this is the best option, but it is an option.
Immie
Do you honestly believe that debt is going to hurt future generations and not us currently? A lot of debt is monetized, meaning money created out of thin air, and inflation. Other debt is borrowing from institutions that would've lent to companies to actually create jobs. There is only a finite amount of money and credit in the country. Each dollar either can go to financing government or financing jobs. Not both. Of course, debt hurts us, both, in the here and now and will certainly hurt us in future generations. We will have to deal with a government 1/5th the size with 60%+ tax rates just to pay off this debt.
That's why Bush's spending spree was horrible for the economy, and Obama's continuation of that is downright criminal.
It has always been on the shoulders of responsible democrats.
The republicans, for all of their electoral success, never quite learned how to govern. Republicans never seem to have learned that they had won. Being against what your in charge of just doesn't seem to work.
driveby said:Dem policies will not fix the economy, but 15 months later, they will STILL blame Bush........
My, my, you think giving 2 years to make up for 8 years of total incompetance is a fair deal? But then, should President Obama actually pull it off, you will find some other reason to whine, snivel, and otherwise deny that he succeeded.
Dem policies will not fix the economy, but 15 months later, they will STILL blame Bush........
I certainly don't believe that the democrats ought to blame Bush any longer than the republicans blamed Clinton.
I figure that gives the democrats at least six more years to blame Bush.
My, my, you think giving 2 years to make up for 8 years of total incompetance is a fair deal? But then, should President Obama actually pull it off, you will find some other reason to whine, snivel, and otherwise deny that he succeeded.
If I was a complete tool as you are, I would point out that the economy didn't tank until after the Dems took control of Congress. We already know who is to blame for the housing mess. The Dems blocked Bush and Republicans from trying to address the problems within Freddie Mac and Fannie May, but you idiot Dems continue to blame the Republicans. At least I will admit that the problem can be blamed on the whole lot of them, but you idiots continue to wear your blinders as to the Dems involvement in this fiasco.
And now, you are jumping up and down like little kids who just got an ice cream cone because your party can now spend more money than has ever been spent before, even though we all know this will lead to incredibly higher taxes at some point. On top of that, they will now print more money to pay their bills, leading to a complete devaluing of the dollar.
When you look at the big picture, you can hope all you want that Obama's plans will succeed. But we all know, his plans are leading us down a slippery slope and his massive expansion of government will eventually need to be paid for by every single American. When our kids wake up to what we have done, you can be certain conservatism will take hold in this country once again.
They have waited 15 years to get back to what they had in 94.
Well, they have it now.
For years the right said that if the Left had this back, they would spend like mad, raise taxes and try to turn the nation socialist.
Looks like the right was spot on.
Except they haven't raised taxes, or at least not nearly enough given the projected deficits.
They have waited 15 years to get back to what they had in 94.
Well, they have it now.
For years the right said that if the Left had this back, they would spend like mad, raise taxes and try to turn the nation socialist.
Looks like the right was spot on.
Except they haven't raised taxes, or at least not nearly enough given the projected deficits.
There you go, again, Irie.
Raining on their parade by pointing out the facts that they somehow have failed to notice...like that taxes really haven't been raised on most people
What a rightwing political rant buzzkill you are
Don't you realize by now that these people speak in mythical terms which bear no relationship to reality?
Let them have their delusions.
That's all they've ever wanted, anyway.
They were thrilled with the fiscal conservatism of Bush II.
They were wowed by his KKKristian version of how life should be.
He was their MISSION ACCOMPLISHED kinda POTUS.
HE was their "bring 'em on" kinda chickenhawk.
No wonder these people hate people like you, man.
You're like the guy who turns on the light that make the formerly happy cockroaches scuttle for the blissful darkness of ignorance.
They have waited 15 years to get back to what they had in 94.
Well, they have it now.
For years the right said that if the Left had this back, they would spend like mad, raise taxes and try to turn the nation socialist.
Looks like the right was spot on.
Except they haven't raised taxes, or at least not nearly enough given the projected deficits.
There you go, again, Irie.
Raining on their parade by pointing out the facts that they somehow have failed to notice...like that taxes really haven't been raised on most people
What a rightwing political rant buzzkill you are
Don't you realize by now that these people speak in mythical terms which bear no relationship to reality?
Let them have their delusions.
That's all they've ever wanted, anyway.
They were thrilled with the fiscal conservatism of Bush II.
They were wowed by his KKKristian version of how life should be. (So Christianity is Ku Klux KLAN? The Racist organization created BY Democrats, FRO DEMOCRATS? Are you sure? It doesn't ring true to me and stands at odds with common sense...)
He was their MISSION ACCOMPLISHED kinda POTUS. (The Mission WAS accomplished... if there a Mission you know of that was NOT accomplished? For instance The US Liberation of Iraq is a 100% success; as is the Liberation of Afghanistan... and to the best of my knowledge Osama Bin Laden is still hiding... What was it that ya have in mind?)
HE was their "bring 'em on" kinda chickenhawk. (Oh so "chickenhawk' now means anything ya want it to mean? How does undefining words actually help you people? What purpose other than cultural subversion does this kind of anti-intellectual practice serve? And FTR: they brought it on and they got the shit kicked out of them for their trouble; which considering that, that was precisely the goal of that statement, it represents yet another SUCCESS...)
No wonder these people hate people like you, man.
(Who could hate the intellectual deficient? Suggesting that someone 'hates' the halfwit, is a function of overstatement... we might lament their deficiency and criticize the error of their reasoning, but we do not hate them; we hate the calamitous result of the policies which result from their addle-minded advocacies; the never ending stream of unintended consequences, from which they demand to be excused...)
You're like the guy who turns on the light that make the formerly happy cockroaches scuttle for the blissful darkness of ignorance. (Oh that's simply a specious conclusion... her argument has shed no light, it merely sought to take advantage of the crumbs left in our wake... thus she represents the Cockroach... not the light.)
They have waited 15 years to get back to what they had in 94.
Well, they have it now.
For years the right said that if the Left had this back, they would spend like mad, raise taxes and try to turn the nation socialist.
Looks like the right was spot on.
Except they haven't raised taxes, or at least not nearly enough given the projected deficits.
What is wrong with Raise taxes, cut spending?
Remember--we have a huge national debt!!
What is wrong with Raise taxes, cut spending?
What is wrong with Raise taxes, cut spending?
Nothing, but that's not what this administration is doing nor what it's going to do. They'll raise taxes and raise spending by even more.
There you go, again, Irie.
Raining on their parade by pointing out the facts.
What is wrong with Raise taxes, cut spending?
Remember--we have a huge national debt!!
But that is not the Republican platform either.
Maybe there is room for a third party. The anti-populists.
Platform--Taxes will increase, and Government service will drop.
Motto--You will swear it is socialism but it is not
Slogan--Good government is demonstrated by Surplusses, not deficits!!
You misunderstand. I'm not in favor of raising taxes for the sake of raises taxes. I'm in favor of raising taxes to cut the deficit. To do so, we have to cut spending. If we cut spending, raises the taxes to pay off the debt, then eventually, we can cut taxes across the board and keep them at a low rate.
And you're absolutely right, it has not been the Republican platform to cut spending, either. That's why John McCain lost my vote with his support of the first bailout. The only recent President to understand the tax system was Clinton. I'm hoping that more like him run in the near future. Actually, Clinton is almost like what you described. He cut spending but forgot to cut taxes after the deficit was gone. So he ended up with a surplus, albeit small. I don't believe the government exists to earn money, it should spend every dime it takes in as revenues or it should return that money to the taxpayers. It would have been nice if Clinton's surplus could have stayed in the Social Security fund, but Bush fucked that up real nice for us.
Obama is worse. Some of his "investments" are good ideas, but I would be more apt to swallow them if they weren't surrounded by waste everywhere, and if they came bundled with more than token cost cutting.
Precisely. The pet projects as a whole were a colossal waste. If they had been inspected on a case-by-case basis, we may have reduced the bailout by a tremendous amount and spent money on GOOD projects. But Obama and his lackeys, like his predecessor, used fear to push a bill through Congress in spite of public outcries. Change we can believe in? More of the same, if you ask me.
