Make your mark...spending problem or revenue problem

[iamwhatiseem]

What do you believe is the PRIMARY problem of our government's inability to stay within it's means no matter what the debt limit is?

Note - I say PRIMARY problem....it can easily be argued that it is both - but of the two - what do you believe is the greatest reason.

 

[FuelRod]

Earmarks.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Earmarks.

So then vote in the poll.

 

[FuelRod]

Sorry I don't think the poll was appearing yet when I replied.

 

[Barb]

What do you believe is the PRIMARY problem of our government's inability to stay within it's means no matter what the debt limit is?

Note - I say PRIMARY problem....it can easily be argued that it is both - but of the two - what do you believe is the greatest reason.

I say revenue. Republicans scream that democrats are "tax and spend," all the while THEY spend without ANY thought to how those bills are to be paid, then they blame the administration charged with cleaning up the clusterfuck they created with the pain of paying for it all.

 

[mascale]

Moses began a recorded explanation of how to do economics for a nation in the Torah books. A just scale of measures was needed. Money-Changers were known, but loans to the poor were to be left interest free. A portion of the crops was to be left for others, and passersby.

People who had were expected to provide. Later even Kings and Psalmists would follow up on the prescriptions. Rewards for the rich were not to be tolerated. Usury applied to the poor was already not to be tolerated.

In the New Testament, lending to the poor without expecation of any repayment whatsoever was expected. In Acts, the original Christians who had, sold that and distributed that so that everyone had enough.

In the current downturn, Because of the Old Fat White People, Cavorting About Naked On Other People's Yachts--Dumpting Substance and Other Treasure Into the Sea: There is the anti-business climate certain created at GOP. Those rich are oblivious, even to community obligations. As an outcome, businesses face customers mainly spending $175.00 per month less--year after year for four years.

In response to the downturn, The Balanced Budgeteers have laid off 500,000 state and local government employees, poetically included a lot of teachers, who are the pond scum who caused it all.

The rich are not being included in the national agenda, at all!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Clearly, Teaching is not possible--at any grade level--unless it is believed that some kids are better than other kids, and that all the other kids are not worth the extra effort. Matter Shown!)

 

[Annie]

Earmarks.

I'm all for getting rid of earmarks, but like a private plane tax, the amounts are just too small to make a dent.

How about the funding for super rail? Department of Ed? Streamlining other departments and merging?

 

[Immanuel]

What do you believe is the PRIMARY problem of our government's inability to stay within it's means no matter what the debt limit is?

Note - I say PRIMARY problem....it can easily be argued that it is both - but of the two - what do you believe is the greatest reason.

I say revenue. Republicans scream that democrats are "tax and spend," all the while THEY spend without ANY thought to how those bills are to be paid, then they blame the administration charged with cleaning up the clusterfuck they created with the pain of paying for it all.

I have to disagree with you. The problem is not revenue per se because the government could triple its revenue tomorrow and by the day after they would quadruple spending. No matter how much revenue they get in Congress does not have the discipline to spend within its means.

Immie

 

[FuelRod]

The problem with the spending is the backroom deals that get done that are not even debated. Banning earmarks would be a big step in the right direction.

 

[Cuyo]

The "Problem" is a recession fueled by a contracting economy which had been bloated with consumer debt and overvaluation of financial instruments.

But out of the two choices, it's a revenue problem. Government revenue (as percent of GDP) is at its lowest point since about 1970. Sorry to all of you who have been taught that Obama is some kind of tax-and-spend machine by unscrupulous sources. It's really just not the case.

 

[ShackledNation]

What do you believe is the PRIMARY problem of our government's inability to stay within it's means no matter what the debt limit is?

Note - I say PRIMARY problem....it can easily be argued that it is both - but of the two - what do you believe is the greatest reason.

I say revenue. Republicans scream that democrats are "tax and spend," all the while THEY spend without ANY thought to how those bills are to be paid, then they blame the administration charged with cleaning up the clusterfuck they created with the pain of paying for it all.

Spending without thinking about how bills will be paid=spending problem.

 

[ShackledNation]

Earmarks.

I'm all for getting rid of earmarks, but like a private plane tax, the amounts are just too small to make a dent.

How about the funding for super rail? Department of Ed? Streamlining other departments and merging?

Super rail? No.
Department of Education? Abolish.
Streamlining other departments? Of course. And cut their budgets.

 

[Wiseacre]

Spending is way out of control, that's the primary problem. Revenue will go up if we could get the economy going, but that's going to take a new president with a different agenda. Look, if you allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on the top 2 tiers, you only end up with about 70 billion a year in more revenue, if that much. That's just a piss in the ocean compared to a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit, so I can't see how anybody can reasonably claim that revenue is the problem.

 

[Brutus]

The problem with the spending is the backroom deals that get done that are not even debated. Banning earmarks would be a big step in the right direction.

earmarks are bad but only about 1-2% of budget

 

[Dr.House]

Spending is way out of control, that's the primary problem. Revenue will go up if we could get the economy going, but that's going to take a new president with a different agenda. Look, if you allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on the top 2 tiers, you only end up with about 70 billion a year in more revenue, if that much. That's just a piss in the ocean compared to a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit, so I can't see how anybody can reasonably claim that revenue is the problem.

^ this...

 

[Immanuel]

The "Problem" is a recession fueled by a contracting economy which had been bloated with consumer debt and overvaluation of financial instruments.

But out of the two choices, it's a revenue problem. Government revenue (as percent of GDP) is at its lowest point since about 1970. Sorry to all of you who have been taught that Obama is some kind of tax-and-spend machine by unscrupulous sources. It's really just not the case.

I would agree that the recession is part of the economic problems we as a nation are facing. However, Congress overspends. Note: I said Congress not the President. I'm not blaming the President although being one of those who have suffered from the economic collapse, I would say that his Stimulus Plan did not do jack shit for those who really needed it.

Thanks for the effort Mr. President. Now do you think you can actually do something for those in this country who really need help as opposed to your buddies that put you in office?

Immie

 

[rightwinger]

Our primary problem is we spend more money than we take in. We need to address both sides of the equation to have any hope of erasing a $14 trillion debt

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Our primary problem is we spend more money than we take in. We need to address both sides of the equation to have any hope of erasing a $14 trillion debt

You realize that is a total non-answer.
I said PRIMARY reason...as in...which is the greater problem.

 

[Polk]

Spending is way out of control, that's the primary problem. Revenue will go up if we could get the economy going, but that's going to take a new president with a different agenda. Look, if you allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on the top 2 tiers, you only end up with about 70 billion a year in more revenue, if that much. That's just a piss in the ocean compared to a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit, so I can't see how anybody can reasonably claim that revenue is the problem.

Revenue as a percentage of GDP being at it's lowest point in decades probably has something to do with it...

 

[MaggieMae]

What do you believe is the PRIMARY problem of our government's inability to stay within it's means no matter what the debt limit is?

Note - I say PRIMARY problem....it can easily be argued that it is both - but of the two - what do you believe is the greatest reason.

Sorry, you need a third: Both.

Too bad most of you just can't grasp that.