We need both higher taxes and lower spending. The American people don't
want to hear the truth, so you we really can't blame our politicians for
not telling us.
"an expensive but underfunded government without any serious plan for making
revenues and expenditures match,""serious plan" is the
key here. Neither party wants to do what is necessary. And neither party has
put forth a plan to make revenue and expenditures match.The Dems
dont want to hit entitlements too hard and the GOP has vowed to NOT raise taxes
one cent.And both sides get what they really want. STALEMATE. They
get status quo. The GOP would be in a real pickle if they had the
numbers to pass the Ryan budget. They are very happy voting for budgets that
they know can not pass.Fixing the budget will take massive spending
cuts and modest tax increases.The "we dont have a taxing
problem, we have a spending problem" crowd has yet to show how to put that
bumper sticker slogan into a solution. And, the reasonable people know it
cannot be done.If the right continues to take a NO COMPROMISE
approach, nothing will change. And the resulting non solution is
worse than a bipartisan agreement. But too many are now so hard
line right that they cant see it.
It would be pretty awesome if you could get some news articles that were simply
news with facts and relevant data than a few supposed facts with large amounts
of opinion thrown in. Let people make up their own mind about how to feel about
things rather than telling them how to feel.
Grr! My apologies in regard to my last comment. When I first saw the story it
wasn't under the opinion heading. Thus, my rant that an article
was full of opinion when it is, in fact, an opinion article is unjustified.
@ Roland. It doesn’t matter how much taxes we pay if the government
doesn’t spend less! And the Obama administration has demonstrated it will
not cut spending!
When you have a polarized party system that considers "compromise" a
dirty word and leadership in the Republican Party stating that they want to make
the President fail at any and all costs, "kicking the can a little farther
down the road" is about the best you can expect.
Re Roland Kayser: "We need both higher taxes and lower spending. The
American people don't want to hear the truth, so you we really can't
blame our politicians for not telling us." Minor addition to your excellent
comment we need higher tax revenues devoted solely and specifically to reduce
debt. Just having increased revenues have never led either to less debt or
lower spending. And, the budget for lower spending needs to be approved before
revenues are in place. Otherwise, the reduced spending never will come.
In 2008 Obama derided George Bush for using a Chinese credit card, calling in
irresponsible and unpatriotic. Obama and the Dems have made Bush's spending
look small. It's time for a regime change.
"And the Obama administration has demonstrated it will not cut
spending!"Mountanman .Care to tell me which
president or congress HAS demonstrated that it WILL CUT SPENDING?From what I have seen, it is neither party.
@mountanmanWhich party is it that very much wants to avoid scheduled and
passed spending cuts that go into effect January 1st? Oh right, the Republicans.
Many posters are partially correct. We need more tax revenues and less
spending. Unfortunately the liberals only know of one way of generating more
revenues, and that is by raising rates. The best way to raise revenues is to
get more people working. If you liberals could figure out how to inspire the
assurance and stability in government that businesses are seeking we can get
more businesses hiring. Many CEOs of large companies state that Obama's
erratic and unpredictable nature with respect to business regulation is what
makes them not want to hire.To "Emajor" why should
conservatives compromise on something that is bad for the country. Would you
have your daughter compromise her values when out on a date?
" If you liberals could figure out how to inspire the assurance and
stability in government "Hmm, looked to me like the economy
started tanking under GOP leadership. I guess the conservatives
"couldn't figure out how to inspire the assurance and stability in
government"either.Nice try red. But, we were ALREADY
bleeding 700,000 jobs per month when Obama was elected.
@RedShirt"Many CEOs of large companies state that Obama's erratic
and unpredictable nature with respect to business regulation is what makes them
not want to hire."I don't buy that for one second. If there
is such a problem with regulation, why are there so many companies out there
making record profits? Why are these same companies still laying people off?The answer is because they have discovered that people will put up with
about anything in order to keep their job because there aren't a lot of
jobs out there. Thus, work your few employees hard enough to make up for the
slack. Pay them poorly, cut their benefits and then show them the door whenever
you feel like picking up someone even cheaper.Do you really think
these companies are going to acknowledge that greed is their motivator? Of
course not, they're going to pass the blame onto the easiest target.
@RedshirtA large portion of the uncertainty comes from the republicans who
at times have wanted to do things like smash into the debt ceiling limit.
To "JoeBlow" and what is your point? Bush, with the help of Obama, set
into motion the public policies that kept bleeding jobs. You forget that Bush
was a Progressive, which is not a conservative.If you look at the
BLS numbers, when congress was run by Democrats, and we tried their plans there
was nearly 0 job growth. Once Congress had its control split, job creation took
off. Why did it happen like that?According to some economists, the
best party to control congress is neither. It is best to have congress so busy
fighting with itself. With congress in continual gridlock businesses don't
have to worry about much in terms of new regulation and taxes. However, Obama
has found that he can use executive orders and federal agencies to bring about
his agenda.To "ThatsSoUtah" and "alt134" read
"Stop Bashing Business, Mr. President" in the WSJ and "Obama
Secretly Courts Big Business" in the Daily Beast. There 2 CEOs are quite
clear about how Obama and his policies make them scared to expand and end up
making the companies lay off employees.
Bush was a progressive????? That's a good one.
Redshirt,"why should conservatives compromise on something that is bad
for the country. Would you have your daughter compromise her values when out on
a date"Oh dear, talk about comparing apples to kumquats.
It's telling that you view national fiscal policy with the same absolutism
as you do your religious moral codes. Here's the problem with
that: economists can't agree on how to get the economy back on track. Some
say the stimulus was necessary, others say it makes matters worse. Multiple
hypotheses, and no control group with which to test them. You think the economy
is ruined because of Obama's policies, but you have no idea what this
economy would be like if McCain/Palin had been in office since 2008. It may have
been worse. Or better. Here's the difference between you and I on this: I
won't say that the economy would have been worse with a republican in
office. Because, like you, I can't prove it. When you can travel back in
time and change the course of the 2008 election, let me know how the economy
looks during Alternate Reality 2012.
Redshirt,Sorry, but I've got to blabber on again. You seem to be
putting a lot of faith in what CEOs think should be done. JP Morgan Chase just
lost, what, perhaps $9 billion in bad investments, despite prior reassurances
from its CEO that they were not engaged in risky investments? If a CEO
didn't see that coming within his own company, why should I believe what
some say about national economic policy?
There is a simple solution to this problem. Instead of 50% of Americans paying
taxes, lets have "all" Americans pay their fair share. Instead of
blaming each political party, let's just face the facts that both parties
are to blame for the problems we now have. Why? Well, because the average
American was "trusting" his or hers elected offical to do what should be
good for America. We were working, raising our families, paying our taxes and
the government official kept spending and spending and then it was gone.
Imangine that! Yet, we still look to the government to fix the
problem. What a foolish thought. We need the courage to force term limits,
live within our means and stop expecting hand outs. Someone somewhere is paying
for the handout. It is not the government. It is the people paying the taxes.
The 50% taking care of all the rest that think there is a money tree in
Washington. Oh yea, I forgot there is, it is called the Federal Reserve and
they print fiat money. It is worth the value of the paper it is printed on. You
can pay more taxes-I am taxed out.
The problem with our politicians is that they have sworn loyalty to the
"party" rather than the people who chose to represent them. In fact it
reminds me of Soviet Communists or German Fascists who talked of nothing other
than the "party." You know a nation is in serious trouble when the
"party" becomes the all important aspect of a politicians life. The fix
is simple in returning America back to the citizens: Drop party affiliation.
Anyone who has registered with a political party is also part of the problem.
If people would simply drop their registration as a democrat or republican and
become independent, the politicians would be forced to forgo their party
allegiances or risk losing their jobs. Politicians are motivated by money and
power. It is their weakness. They seem to be able to find plenty of money from
a handful of wealthy donors (aka puppet masters) but the power to rule comes
from the power of the vote. If they can no longer take votes for granted via
party membership, then they have no choice but to become answerable to the
people thereby placing power back into the hands of the people where it belongs.
The Democrats want higher taxes. Fine! They're free to pay the government
anything OVER the amount that they're assessed. Of course, when it comes
to THEM paying more taxes, they scurry for cover. They stammer and stutter that
what America needs is for Obama's mythical "rich man" to pay for
the services that THEY, themselves, receive. They refuse to open
their own wallets, but they demand that somebody else open his.They
demand equality, except when it comes to paying for the RESPONSIBILITY of being
a free citizen in America.They want someone else to work longer
hours for less pay so that they can join with Obama in removing all incentive
from being "successful".When Obama has sense enough to ask
successful business people to show him how they became successful, he may begin
to see that his leftist ideas left him I'll-prepared to lead this FREE
country, but he's so sure that he's got the right idea that he will
destroy this nation just to prove that he's wrong.
Are parties the problem?When we go to a baseball game, do we expect
to see "teams" play each other, or should we all demand that eighteen
"independents" take the field; after all everybody knows that big money
controls sports and that we'll never see a real game until each player
plays only for himself.In every situation there are always two
choices. When the democrats and the republicans clearly stand on opposite sides
of each choice, why would we prefer to have people who straddle the fence?One party tells us that they're comfortable having 47% of the
people on the dole and then charging the "rich guys" $60 billion a year
to pay off $15 trillion in deficits. Does anyone in that party know how to do
math? Do they really think that we have 250 years to pay down the deficit - at
no interest?It's not the parties who at fault, but the false
ideals espoused by those parties.
I read a letter in the DN this week from a lady criticizing Mia Love for saying
that she thought the Dept of Education should be eliminated. That's the
commenter's opinion and she's entitled to it but it illustrates the
fact that we just can't cut anything without some special interest singing
the blues. We just found out that the USPS is going to default on a
required payment of 15 billion to it's retirement fund but every time
Postal Service executives propose closing post offices or processing facilities
or eliminating Saturday delivery to cut costs our Congress won't let
them. We're actually spending money at the USDA to advertise to
people that they should sign up for the Snap (food stamps) program. We're
working with Mexico to help us find Mexican nationals in America to enroll in
our Snap program. Are you kidding me? Where does all the spending end? Not
in a good place. Left, Right, or Center I don't see how a sane person can
conclude that we do not have a spending/money printing problem in this Country.
Just stop paying the bills, that's all you have to do. Espacially the
trillon dollar a year Pentagon bill.All over America republican men
are buying record numbers of guns and ammo on thier credit cards and blaming
thier wives for spending too much money when they pay the credit card bill. It IS just like your kitchen table.
@VST -- Yes, but billions of dollars spent on a couple of wars is not what most
people would call progressive, now is it?
The big problem is that everyone has something they want government to do, but
no one (especially the Republicans) want to pay for it. When the R's were
in power, they started two wars and Medicare Part D without any means of paying
for them. They even went further and cut taxes, especially on the top 1-2%.
They (with a lot of help from Dems, including Clinton) deregulated the financial
industry with the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and caused the economic crisis.
Now, with taxes at the lowest point in 50 years, they are still screaming that
taxes are too high.Interest rates for the government have never been
lower. Europeans are flocking to put money into US bonds - they see it as
giving a very bad return, but as the safest place to park their money. We need
more deficit spending to get the economy moving again, and then we need to
increase taxes and pay off the debt, but only after the economy is doing well
again. Deficit spending in bad economic times, paying off the debt in good
economic times. That's the best recipe for success. Unfortunately,
everyone forgets that second part.