Hey, it’s better than Romney’s proposal to solve it by lowering taxes on billionaires.
I’m another for whom the deficit is far and away issue #1, (and will be voting third party), but honestly, I gotta say I’d just as soon Obama win. What closing the deficit requires is someone who is both bold enough to make the needed cuts, including to entitlement programs and defense and politically skilled enough to sell conservatives on the tax increases that will be needed to make those cuts politically possible. IMO, Romney isn’t that guy. He’d make some headway, but all I see him being able to do is get trillion-dollar deficits down to 700 billion, while blocking the path to someone better.
I’d just as soon see Obama stay in office, hastening the day of reckoning, and hope a Clinton/Reagan-level communicator emerges who has the nerve and the skill to tell us all to grow up. That’s probably both cynical and naive.
The best and in fact only effective way to cut the deficit is to FIX THE ECONOMY. But I am bit unclear as to why the deficit is the main issue for so many people.
Cutting the deficit will not put one person to work. Decreasing government spending will not put one person to work, indeed it will have the opposite effect. Who died and made the deficit king? Why are so many focused on the deficit?
Let me deal with these in reverse order. The deficit is the main issue for me because I’ve studied economic history and thus know that a large deficit can utterly ruin a country. It happened in Germany and other central European countries in the 20’s, in Argentina repeatedly, and in several European countries right now, just to name a few instances. I would rather not have the American economy utterly ruined. Hence I’d prefer that our politicians bring the debt down while there’s still time, rather than driving it upwards until disaster hits.
As for the notion that we can cut the deficit by fixing the economy, it isn’t going to happen. Even the CBO projects the debt growing to 22 trillion dollars by 2022, and their projections for economic growth are usually too optimistic. If we want to cut the debt, we have to cut spending. We can’t just make money materialize out of thin air.
For several decades we’ve been running increasingly larger and larger deficits, even when the overall economy is doing fine. The only time we’ve broken even in the last half-century was for a few years at the peak of the tech boom. Saying “fix the economy,” even if you shout it really loud, doesn’t mean you can do it. If anyone knew how to make 5% growth happen whenever they wanted it to, we’d all be rich.
Aside from the basic moral discomfort some feel about saddling their grandchildren with debts, many see it as an existential threat. Defaulting on debt – or inflating it away – would be catastrophically bad, and lead to upheaval and suffering far greater than anything in the last 80 years.
It can be argued, and many do, that in fact the US has significant capacity for debt remaining; and perhaps we do. But of course, that’s one of those questions, like “how deep can this submarine really go before the hull collapses,” that can only be answered by learning the hard way. Given the enormous stakes, some of us would rather make the hard choices sooner rather than later.
Obama should win. He has some solid accomplishments in office (ending the U.S. combat role in Iraq, killing OBL, passing healthcare reform, signing the Ledbetter Act, saving the auto industry, ending DADT, ending torture by U.S. military and intelligence agencies, Wall Street reform, etc.), and I agree with him on far many more issues than I disagree. He has earned a second term, and then some.
Romney has moved sharply and conveniently to the right on every major issue since he ran against Ted Kennedy for the U.S. Senate, and is, IMHO, utterly untrustworthy.
Obama.
I have the same problem with Romney I did with McCain. I actually think they both would make good leaders, but the things they have to say (and do) to win their parties nomination just…bleh… make me ill. Mostly because I dont for a minute think either one of them believe half the shit they spew during the primaries.
But it really goes to my whole issue with the Rebuplican party that started with the 2004 election and really went to a disgusting place in 2008… and it’s that every Republican canidate out there always colors their supporters as “real americans”.
Now they never call the rest of us “un-american” but the implication is there. and how can you support any party that truly thinks that if you aren’t with us, you’re against us?? We are all Americans…all of us (well if your voting anyway!)… and to just disregard us, mock, insult… I just can’t support that.
Considering that Obama was dealt the worst hand of any president in modern times when he took over, I think he’s done a pretty good job. There aren’t soup lines around every corner and he got the troops out of an unwinnable war, to mention just two of his accomplishments. He still gets grief for them, but I guess that’s politics.
He has also surprised occasionally with the work he’s done behind the scenes. Until the announcements were made, there was no indication that he had focused on getting bin Laden, and had been working on bolstering American presence in the Pacific as a warning to any military designs China might get, all while his detractors were frothed up on him being weak on terrorism and on birther BS. So, on his record in office, I’d say he passes with flying colours.
The biggest difference that I see between Obama and Romney has to do with their motivation. As maudlin as it sounds, Obama has a vision (that happens to resonate with me, so I’d support him), while Romney just wants the last notch in his ego belt. I’m sure he’d be a competent manager just as he’s been in business, but that’s all. I can’t see him being inspired to do anything greater than that, and there are times when inspiration is needed.
Ross Perot already tried running on that platform, twice. It ain’t gonna fly.
FTR, the only thing that seriously disappoints me about the Obama Admin is its civil-liberties record. Didn’t close Gitmo, didn’t end indefinite detentions, assassinated bin Laden instead of capturing him for trial – OK, that one’s defensible, a captive bin Laden would have been an invitation to hostage-taking by his supporters demanding his release. But they keep doing it . . . Still a scary record overall, especially coming from a constitutional lawyer. I more or less trust Obama not to abuse his extended-wartime power any more than he already has, but I shudder to think what the next Pub POTUS might do with those expanded executive powers, especially if he’s a neocon. Executive power works like a rachet, once expanded on a given point it seems never to be diminished again.
Actually, I think Terr did answer my question although to be honest, I did not even consider that he was contemplating a move to another country. While I think his concerns are a bit overblown and the chosen solution is a little extreme I nevertheless wish him well in whichever country he chooses.
For what it is worth, New Zealand is a very nice country. We went on holiday’s there.
Romney’s a sleazy salesman pushing a product you know he doesn’t even believe in, and which he barely understands–it’s sufficient for him that his boss wants the product sold and is willing to reward Romney handsomely for selling it so well.
If you feel answered, I suppose I’m being a little forward. But my impression is that your question was, essentially: “How does an un[der]employed person with few or no resources beyond a house or apartment full of personal effects go about relocating to a more job-rich region of the country?”
That question didn’t look very answered to me. But, as I say, if that’s not what you had in mind, my apologies.
That is why you should not run deficits in times of prosperity, which George W Bush did in fact do, those are times when you should be paying down deficits. During weak economic times, that is when you run deficits, making deficits the primary concern during these periods is dumb. Yes, historically large deficits have ruined countries, but of course they were ruined by a variety of other things, such as the fact that they suffered through hyper-inflation, thinking they could just print money to get by. There is historical precedent, but we are nowhere near that at this time and the main issue should be getting people back to work and getting productivity up. Having pissing contests about the deficit right now is ridiculous.
OK, I over-reached when I said “only” effective way. Mea Culpa. However, I still stand by it being the most effective way.
What W did was push through tax cuts at the start of a war. I can think of no modern historical precedents for that stupidity.
Well the war was going to pay for itself, remember?
Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate, will be on the ballot in all 50 states (or so I heard him boast on The Daily Show).
Obama. It has nothing to do with him or Mitt Romney and everything to do with the idea that, if such misinformation as has been thrown about over the past 4 years ends up being proven as a genuinely effective tactic, then it is sure to be embraced over and over again by both sides. And how do we run an effective government going forward if that is the case?
New Zealand is awesome.
But be warned - the PM is a conservative 