Baby Boomer federal employees should be retiring en mass now as they reach retirement. It’s not happening. With a crappy economy, and threats to retirement benefits, Boomers are staying put.
But reducing the federal workforce is eye candy, without anything useful. You have to cut the programs they are required by Congress to manage. My staff have been reduced by more than 57 percent during the past year. Yet my obligated workload remains the same, with requests for more.
If your opinion is that the PPACA will have unintended and unpredictable consequences, that’s a fine and reasonable position to have. It’s a massive reform, and Congress is only human (on its best days).
But don’t dress up your opinion in made-up statistics and false information. Not only do you mislead people, you make yourself far less credible.
Hey Galveston! I thought this was supposed to be a civil discussion!.
We can make a big dent in the debt with a balance of spending cuts and revenue increases. I am willing to make spending cuts, if Republicans will agree to revenue increases.
But, no revenue increases, no spending cuts.
You’re not actually taxing people; you’re taxing money. The super-rich may not be numerous, but the money is there. US income distribution:Only 1% of the population has 34.6% of the net worth, and 42.6% of the financial wealth. The bottom 80% has only 15% and 7% respectively. And that was as of 2007 - which direction do you think it’s gone since?
So why do you want to tax mostly the bottom 80%? :dubious: Because that 1% are funding your campaign and your “news” networks, maybe?
What that argument usually fails to acknowledge is that NOT acting ALSO has unintended and unpredictable consequences. It therefore cannot be honestly used as an argument either way - it’s merely an excuse.
Maybe ifthe democrats had bothered with passing any simblance of a budget while ruling the checkbook we wouldn’t be in this mess. If anyone needs to be accused of playing chicken…
You know why we’re in this mess? (1) Bush tax cuts + (2) two unfunded wars + (3) a recession. Future increases in the deficit are largely because of the tax cuts and increasing medical costs from Medicaid/Medicare, the latter of which are projected to be smaller because of the Democrats reforms in 2010.
Unlike the GOP, the Democrats actually pay for the programs they want, at least when the GOP isn’t filibustering to prevent this. What has the GOP ever done for the deficit, other than massively increasing it?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303812104576439793321939806.html
Any other facts you’d like to get wrong while you have our attention, galveston?
Wrong! The tax increases do not happen until 2013! The tax increases are in the future … like the tax cuts.
On edit, I see Robot Arm has already gotcha. Carry on!
A tax increase is not a one time thing. You do not balance the books in one day. But more revenue, year after year will eventually retire the debt.
When Bush came into power, the Dems left him a surplus. Within 8 years he totally trashed the economy. He started 2 unnecessary wars without paying for them. Then he started cranking back revenue with a string of tax cuts. You do not have to be a financial expert to figure out where that would end. It ended with a crashed economy and an enormous debt.
Obama is not responsible for this mess. TARP had to include even more tax cuts before the Repubs ,who were responsible for crashing the world economy, would vote for it. Now they insist that we should not increase the tax load of those who have been making out like thieves (or bankers).
They are being totally irresponsible.
I wish the voters were smart enough to turn on them. But they are not.
If the Republicans succeed in trashing the economy by not raising the debt ceiling, we will indeed have moved from democracy to idiocracy.
Life must be good in Fantasy Land…
Let’s just look back at a little timeline…
Democrats controlled congress and the checkbook from 2007 to Jan 2011. Obama take office in 2008 and you not only have complete control of Congress, but the Senate & the White House as well. Pray tell, what happened to the deficit during this period?
According to their simple chart
2007: -$275.5 B
2008: -$1,009.1 TRILLION
2009: -$1,253.7 TRILLION
Probably a good thing 2010 wasn’t included
Instead of paying for those programs, looks to me like the controlling Democrats walked the check and left the US taxpayers holding the tab.
It’s just not as simple as pointing to a timeline and asking who controlled Congress, unless you blame the Democrats for the Bush tax cuts, the recession, and failing to budget for a war built in lies. You might in fact blame the Democrats for those things, but if so that belief has no connection to reality.
Humour this foreigner but didn’t Bush run the country and present the budgets in 2008?
Yes. We are actually still running on the Bush budgets. They’ve been extended multiple times. Any attempt to pass an Obama budget will be blocked in the senate the Democrats haven’t even tried very hard to pass one.
A failure on the Democrats in my opinion. They should have proposed one and when the Republicans block it stand on the soap boxes and let everyone know just whose budget plan we have been stuck on.
I’m so tired of hearing about Obama’s budget destroying the economy, he hasn’t passed a budget since he’s been in office.
If you think Obama took office in 2008, you are indeed living in fantasy land. In Reality Land, the newly elected US president takes office in the January following the presidential elections, which are held in November, every four years. The most recent such election was held in 2008.
Nobody says you could balance the budget merely by taxing the rich. It doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be a good start. We’ve got a big hole to close. Saying “tut tut- the rich don’t have enough money to close the hole all by themselves so there’s no point to having them pay a penny more” is nutty. Here’s a clue- just because you make over $250K doesn’t make you a “job creator”. They can and should pay a little more. Raising Derek Jeter’s tax rates is not going to keep him from creating any jobs. Tax the rich, close the loopholes, end the oil subsidies, and you’re off to a good start. Want to cut spending? End the wars, downsize the army, let Medicare negotiate drug prices. Hiding behind the myth that taxes have a damn thing to do with job creation just digs the hole deeper.
The Democrats have never controlled the Senate, which requires 60 votes. Republicans in the Senate have stonewalled any attempt to balance the budget proposed by Democrats.
How we got the deficit :