Should There Be A Law...

[AVG-JOE]

Obama deserves the chance to put his program into effect.

I think the heavy deficit spending right now is neccessary for two reasons.

First, we need a stimulus to the economy. The only reason I'm sitting here today is I have no work, the slowdown is still expanding. It was the Repub. policy to not save the banks and not stimulate the economy that led to the Great Depression. We can't make that same mistake today, even Repubs admit that it wasn't until the Gov started massive deficit spending for WWII that the economy recovered.

Second, we need to invest in our future. Again we need to learn from the past, large public investment in infrastructure is still paying off. Where would America be right now without things like the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges, the Interstate Highway system, etc? Dependence on fossil fuels is far too expensive, employer based insurance is a competative disadvantage on the world market and we are losing our lead in education leaving our children even less competative.

Unless the Repubs have a better idea, they can't lead on any of these issues, so they should either follow or get out of the way.

Deficit spending = bad. Try again.

I'm with wihosa... lets roll the dice on Obama's budget and if it comes up craps we'll tell the Chinese to "Just try and foreclose!" Glockmail, Palerider, ABikerSailor et al will show them where they can stuff their treasury notes if it fails.

Now is the time to put our balls on the block and pull the trigger...

-Joe

 

[Jon]

I'll take a 'Tax and Spend' Democratic government over a 'Tax-Cut and Spend' Republican government any day, given only those two choices.

-Joe

I would love a "tax and spend" Democratic government that taxes the amount necessary to pay for the cost of government and spends the amount necessary to keep the country stable.

That is not this administration. They are taxing more than the previous administration, but they are spending WAY more than the previous administration. In my opinion, Bush's "tax-cut and spend" was dumb, but what Obama is doing is even dumber.

Dude... isn't that the definition of a "Classic" Republican?

-Joe

No, it's the definition of logic. It doesn't fall under either the Republican or the Democratic column. Republicans want to cut taxes and, lately, spend money. Democrats wants to raise taxes and, lately, spend even MORE money.

Neither is what the government is actually SUPPOSED to do. The government is supposed to provide necessary services for the public and raise enough in tax revenue to pay for those services. Democrats probably have it right when it comes to tax revenues, because their tax rates are closer to what's necessary to provide basic services for the public. They, however, can't seem to keep their ATM cards in their wallet. They want to spend, spend, spend, and the money's just not there.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I would love a "tax and spend" Democratic government that taxes the amount necessary to pay for the cost of government and spends the amount necessary to keep the country stable.

That is not this administration. They are taxing more than the previous administration, but they are spending WAY more than the previous administration. In my opinion, Bush's "tax-cut and spend" was dumb, but what Obama is doing is even dumber.

Dude... isn't that the definition of a "Classic" Republican?

-Joe

No, it's the definition of logic. It doesn't fall under either the Republican or the Democratic column. Republicans want to cut taxes and, lately, spend money. Democrats wants to raise taxes and, lately, spend even MORE money.

Neither is what the government is actually SUPPOSED to do. The government is supposed to provide necessary services for the public and raise enough in tax revenue to pay for those services. Democrats probably have it right when it comes to tax revenues, because their tax rates are closer to what's necessary to provide basic services for the public. They, however, can't seem to keep their ATM cards in their wallet. They want to spend, spend, spend, and the money's just not there.

Sounds like your idea of a 'perfect public servant' is more concerned with doing the right thing than winning the next election... Doesn't really describe either party - perhaps we should look at the intentions of individuals instead of parties...

-Joe

 

[Jon]

Sounds like your idea of a 'perfect public servant' is more concerned with doing the right thing than winning the next election... Doesn't really describe either party - perhaps we should look at the intentions of individuals instead of parties...

No, you think?