Many on these boards seem to think that everyone that voted for Obama (or is a
Democrat) wants massive tax increases and no spending cuts.Many of
you would probably label me as a liberal, however I consider myself an
independent. (fiscal conservative and socially moderate)I hope to
see 3 to 1 (spending cuts to revenue increases). Hardly the "no entitlement
cuts" view that many have of those not GOP. If there are not
reasonable entitlement cuts, I will call out the Democrats and voice my
concerns.And, I would dare to say that most of those on these boards
that are painted as "liberal" are also wanting to see significant cuts
in entitlements. (you "liberals" please chime in)Personally, I see the GOP base as much more rigid in their adherence to party
ideology than those on the left (and of course this is a generalization, and
exceptions can be found on both.)You may be surprised at how
"reasonable" some of those "liberals" are when you actually get
to know their positions. Oh My Heck, you may even find that you
share many of those positions.
Mr. Evensen's closing line is indisputable. "As the recent past has
shown, politicians can solve problems or draw ideological swords and engage in
endless battle. They cannot do both."We have to send the message
loudly and clearly to all of our representatives that we want work and solutions
not political point scoring.
Swords, of course. They're drawing swords, and everyone knows it. As for Joe Blow's challenge, my own view is hardly
idiosyncratic--it's the mainstream view of most macro-economists--but
it's not mainstream among politicians. The truth is, the deficit is not
that big a deal, and is not the crisis that needs to be solved. We're in a
liquidity trap, and more government spending is needed.The time for
austerity is when unemployment is low and the economy is booming. At that point,
I'd be all for spending cuts. Not now.
If we get rid of the tea party obstructionists? Yes, then we'll have a
Congress that actually works.
@JoeBlow"And, I would dare to say that most of those on these
boards that are painted as "liberal" are also wanting to see significant
cuts in entitlements. (you "liberals" please chime in)"Define significant. I'm probably pretty rare in wanting changes in the
COLA increases for social security. As for Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare I want
single payer universal healthcare which increases spending (but of course is a
more efficient not-for-profit insurance system so the cost savings to
people/employers in the form of not buying their own private market insurance
would more than offset the gov't spending increase).As for tax
increases:spending cuts, a return to clinton era tax rates is about 450 billion
a year I think in revenue and since I think the fairest way to get to a balanced
budget is through taxation levels similar to that of our last balanced budget
and then cutting spending to make up the rest that leaves about 700 billion for
spending cuts so that would leave me at wanting a 3:2 spending cut:tax increase
ratio.I don't think we need a balanced budget. Just cut it in
half. Still use the 3:2 ratio.
@JoeBlow- for goodness sakes...Romney and Ryan campaigned on saving Medicare as
we know it for those 55 and older and yet they were portrayed as "pushing
Granny off the cliff". Meanwhile Obamacare took half a trillion out of
Medicare and did the Democrats get criticized for that? Democrats passed
Obamacare with zero Republican support and now (as Mr Evensen pointed out) 16
Democrat Senators want to delay or end the tax on Medical devices that was
intended to help fund Obamacare. Can one person on the left point out the
hypocrisy? Just one? My biggest problem with Romney and many other
Republicans is that they will noy admit that the DOD can get by with less money.
I served in the Army and as far as I can tell the US military is basically a
giant diversity training seminar (other than Special Ops God bless 'em) If you want to see what's wrong with Congress then look at the bill
that would help victims of Hurricane Sandy. Pork for days. They cannot help
themselves. The Country is flat out broke, broker than broke and they still
insert pork barrel projects into any legislation
"If you want to see what's wrong with Congress "Let me
finish that for you.If you want to see what's wrong with
Congress look no further than the Senate Minority leader who filibusters
legislation that he himself introduced.How can you get any
"wronger" than that?
@Eric SamuelsenI agree completely with you. Government should do
deficit spending when times are bad, and pay down the debt when times are good.
If we go into austerity mode right now, we'll have a double-dip recession
for sure. And it is bad enough as it is.
The problem is that we have differing party ideology.One may think.
"lets deficit spend now and pay back when times are good"But then
the next party comes in power and would rather lower taxes than pay back the
debt.Perfect example - Great economy under Clinton. Surpluses could
have been used to pay back the debt but instead were returned to taxpayers.Can you imagine if a corporation changed CEO's every few years and
each CEO had a very different long term strategy?The company would
I think the compromise is going to come in the form of letting tax cuts expire
for the top 2% and do little if anything else.I'm a Democrat
and yes we need more than increased taxes for wealthy Americans. We need real
entitlement reform.So why is that some of us here, who come from
very different political persuasions, can say that but Congress can't?
Compromise is when Conservatives roll over on their principals but the reverse
is never true.
Were the members of Congress elected to promote and defend an ideology of one
side or the other to the point of a dictatorship-like "my way or the
highway" stance? Or were they elected to represent us in a democratically