[quote=“galveston, post:118, topic:591004”]
Let’s see, Reagan increased the national debt by nearly 2 trillion dollars. That was in 8 years, wasn’t it?QUOTE]Reagan was straight up too. He didn’t have the excuse of two majorly expensive wars, nor did he come in after the biggest financial meltdown since the depression. Nosiree bob, Ronnie was able to increase the national debt by $2T all by his lonesome. Impressive.
I do, I do understand the cuts necessary. What you don’t seem to understand is that unless we reform Medicare and Social Security neither of them will be here not far down the road. And, yes, I draw SS. If we don’t get a handle on all this, the country won’t be here for long. (At least as we have known it.)
Defense spending can be cut substantially without compromising security. Everyone knows that the Pentegon has wasted enormous amounts of money for as long as I can remember. Just cut smart. Use a scapel, not a broad axe.
How much is 2 trillion dollars from 1989 worth in 2011?
Yeah, the axe should be saved for lopping off entire cabinet departments like Education, Energy and Labor, right?
Puleeze! The maimedstream media was hollering about Bush’s 7.5% unemployment rate. It has risen now to 9+ under Obama. If you count those who are no longer on the rolls because their unemployment compensation has run out, it is much higher. We have more people getting food stamps than ever. Which would you prefer? Food stamps, or a job?
How can you cling to the idea that we can spend ourselves out of debt? Can you do that at your house? Share with us, Bro.
We are not trying to spend ourselves out of debt, we need to spend our way out of recession. That is how it has always been done. We have never cut our way out of a recession. That is why a balanced budget amendment is suicide.
In this case, it’s percentages that count. We weren’t borrowing $0.42 out of every dollar we were spending on interest like we are now. It is true that Obama didn’t start this, but he has ceratinly accelerated it. If you want to reach the point that all revenue from taxes is spent on servicing the national debt, then continue to elect spendthrifts, Democrat or Republican.
Could you elaborate on that? It’s one of the reasons I became divorced.
Absolutely. Now, are you being saracastic or serious? Oh, and don’t forget the EPA. It has gotten entirely out of hand.
And what makes you think that’s my opinion? I was talking about what I’ve heard others on the Left say.
Our air is only as good as it is because of those regulations. Remove them and you’ll see the air choked with poison in no time. I’m not interested in coughing up blood just to satisfy the Right’s greed and anti-regulation fetish.
By spending in ways that make you more money, of course.
If you libs don’t like what conservatives are offering, then present a plan of your own that will actually work in the present environment. We just do not have the jobs that previous recoveries had to rely on. If you don’t believe that, go to Wal Mart (or anywhere else) and look for products that are not made in China. We have to lure jobs back here, if possible, and do whatever is necessary to build new manufacturing jobs here. Additional taxes and regulations (think EPA) do just the opposite of what we need.
Get a handle on this, or you will see bread lines in the cities once again.
Unfair. I never said we do not need any regulation. I said we don’t need crippling ones, and that is the present direction the EPA is taking.
Just how does the gummint spend money to make money? The private sector does that, not the public sector. Never.
Well, I think it’s your opinion because you keep asserting variations on that theme. Apologies if I’ve misinterpreted you.
Whether it’s an opinion you actually hold is beside my point, which is that whoever holds such an opinion has to either be so far removed from median political sensibilities that they fail to distinguish critical differences between the parties or between specific politicians, or have some other significant cognitive issues preventing them from apprehending such distinctions.
In your case, and based purely on what I’ve observed of your posting history on the SDMB regarding political theory, I suggested that it’s clearly the former.
Oh, nonsense. The private sector has no magic powers. One obvious example is building and rebuilding the national infrastructure; that’s government spending that hugely enhances the economy. And therefore increases the tax yield.
galveston, when you block quote others’ posts, could you break them up in such a way as to retain the sense of the original poster? Der Trihs replied coherently to three different points, but the way you quoted those replies made that post look as garbled as one of your own.
Here’s an example of how you might do this:
You’ve asserted this, but your only argument that they’re doing so is to mention they’re issuing further regulation on emissions. Given that science produces a continually shifting consensus on what is environmentally harmful and thus legislation and regulations necessarily follow, it’s not unreasonable to assume that your objection is to the government’s very power to regulate.
By stimulating the economy, thereby growing it, thereby boosting revenues without having to change the tax structure.
You already have those, in their equivalent modern form of citizens waiting for unemployment insurance and welfare checks. It’s been decades since you’ve not had them.
A plan I’d suggest would in part include indexing social security payments to life expectancy, i.e. gradually creeping the age upward to reflect how Americans are living longer. Raising taxes a few percentage points on the wealthiest Americans won’t hurt them - it was frankly insanity (or at least gross incompetence) to embark on two major wars without doing this. I’d do away with ridiculous security-theater regulations on the airlines that do little more that discourage and delay air travel. The banking industry, in contrast, would be heavily regulated. Get Elizabeth Warren into a position of authority in this regard. Offer “mortgage forgiveness” directly to people who have gotten “under”, to keep them in their homes and neighborhoods. Houses that have long been abandoned in blighted areas can be purchased by the government, turned over to local businesses to “recycle” the building materials and then torn down, the land reclaimed for trees or parks, to eventually form the basis of a new “homestead” act in which the land can be cheaply granted to citizens who can plausibly make good use of it.
This is just off the top of my head, of course. I’m okay with partly deregulating some goods and service industries (though not the financial sector). Throw in marijuana legalization as a token gesture that American adults will no longer be treated like children, and I think I could do a better job than a tea party candidate, though I’d have zero chance of re-election.
I’d like to endorse Bryan Ekers (Sane-Canada) for honorary public official of whatever US legislative body of which he’d be pleased to honorarily become a member.
Thank you for your support. When I am overlord, your death will be a painless one.
Tell me yet again how much good that “stimulus” did. As Obama said, those “shovel ready jobs were not as shovel ready as we thought”. Very perspective!
It ain’t workin’, ya know?
OK, so I didn’t get it blocked right this time. Tips?
At least you are posting some thought.
While we are at it, let’s eliminate Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, or at least the policies that caused the housing collapse. You can’t make mortagaes to people who don’t make enough money to pay for them.
I’m gonna have to look up Elizabeth Warren.