MaggieMae
Reality bits
- Apr 3, 2009
- 24,043
- 1,635
- 48
Earmarks.
Earmarks have never been more than 2% of any spending bills, even at their height in 2005.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Earmarks.
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.
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
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?
Spending as a percentage of GDP being at its highest point in decades probably has something to do with it...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...
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
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.
Spending without thinking about how bills will be paid=spending problem.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 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
Whatever happened to PAYGO? No new spending programs unless offset by cuts in another.
And we should listen to advisers of a failed and terribly run campaign why?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
Mark Zandi, who was an economic adviser to the McCain campaign, wrote a paper showing there would be 8.5 million fewer jobs today in the absence of the stimulus.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
The President can only "do" so much. As Bernanke recently said, "We're out of bullets." Time for the private sector to step up and quit whining. Only they can break the impasse now.
Spending as a percentage of GDP being at its highest point in decades probably has something to do with it...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...
In fact, we are at the highest spending levels in the history of the United States minus WWII when government completely took over the economy. We are at higher spending levels than WWI, the Cold War, the Vietnam war, and the Great Depression. Revenue problem? Really? Not to mention we are in a recession, during which people have less jobs (lower income tax revenue) less money to spend (lower sales tax) and lower productivity.
Raising taxes drains wealth from the private sector. This wealth deteriorates via government bureaucracy. By further sucking resources from the private sector and giving them to the waste of government bureaucracy, nothing will be fixed. Revenue problem? I think not.
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
When that happens at home, people stop spending...
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
The President can only "do" so much. As Bernanke recently said, "We're out of bullets." Time for the private sector to step up and quit whining. Only they can break the impasse now.
I'm getting really sick of Bernanke. Being too lazy to do anything else is different from not being able to do anything else.