It likely won't this time, either.
Here's hoping for some sanity, reason and logic from that group this time.
Monday, May 28, 2012
The Republicans are threatening--yet again--to take the nation to the brink of bankruptcy, all to "prove a point." (Click on picture for better viewing).
It didn't work for them--or the nation, certainly--last time.
It likely won't this time, either.
Here's hoping for some sanity, reason and logic from that group this time.
It likely won't this time, either.
Here's hoping for some sanity, reason and logic from that group this time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Assuming that a congressman believes that the current budget is extremely excessive--what is their ethical course of action?
Other than 'republicans are always wrong', how do we figure out which side isn't compromising enough?
How do we decided which side isn't compromising enough?
Well, since the Republicans, due to their extremely restrictive Tea Party members, aren't compromising at all as they have not for at least since 2008, that seems an excellent and obvious place to start.
Did you see where Sen. Alan Simpson, himself a Republican, said they--the Republicans--were utterly out of line and that they were foolish not to compromise and work with the Democrats? That's for starters.
And that debt? Here's your debt:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/
And then there's this, from Forbes, the business--and pro business--magazine:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
There's your extremely excessive budget.
And while you're asking, why don't we cut the far-and-away biggest piece of the budget down--defense spending, by, oh, let's say by half? Sounds great. Good idea. As a Libertarian, I'd think you'd support it.
Then it could shrink from there.
MR
The stats saying Obama is the smallest spender are playing games with the numbers--like counting his entire first year as Bush spending, then using that inflated number (including TARP spending) as the baseline. (Note that I'm not saying that Bush spending was responsible)
The budget is still growing. It was too big when Bush took office, and he only made it worse. It needs to go back to at least Clinton levels, (adjusted for inflation, or indexed to percentage of GDP, either will do). A reasonable compromise would be to halt growth at the current excessive spending level-or rather, the minimum acceptable compromise.
Cut defense spending? Absolutely. But there are so many other places that need to be cut as well.
Lets limit the department of agriculture's budget to not more than 1/3 the revenue of the part of the economy they are supposed to regulate. Still a ridiculously high percentage, but a vast improvement.
Allow private contractors to replace TSA screeners, as long as they can exceed the TSA's performance.
Don't make the working poor subsidize other people's college educations.
End the war on drugs--Worthwhile for just the economic benefits, even if you don't count the racial inequity, the funding of gangs, or the militarization of police
End ALL energy subsidies, whether it goes to big oil, windmills, ethanol or whatever.
Quit worrying about who gets the blame and fix the problem. It is still a problem if it was caused by Bush--if blaming Bush is necessary to get on with fixing it, fine.
As long as spending is growing rather than shrinking, the fiscally responsible people are compromising too much.
But the fact is, while it's still piling on debt, sure, he's adding far less than the other presidents.
The defense budget makes all other budgets tiny by comparison. We need to start there--and start by cutting deeply in armaments, not in support to the troops, of course.
At one point in your response you say "Quit worrying about who gets the blame and fix the problem." The fact is, I am not assigning and did not and will not assign blame. I'm saying both sides need to compromise, period. The system needs to work and as we all know, it's not.
The "fiscally responsible people" are in neither of these two parties and they're not in this Congress. Spending is increasing on all sides and will continue to increase as long as we let our legislators receive "campaign contributions." As long as they get those, they will be paid to keep the spending and tax cuts, both, coming for whoever gives them that contribution.
We couldn't agree more about oil subsidies for "Big Oil."
There is no need to blame George W. Bush for anything but his 2nd, chosen, arbitrary, illegal Iraq War. Other than that, you won't see or hear me bring up anything like that.
MR
Keep in mind, Sevesteen, it is the Rethuglicans who are threatening to shut down the government, too, of course, and that's what begat this political cartoon and my post. Shutting down the government isn't compromising, as they should be, in order to reduce that spending.
You're also ignoring the fact that virtually all economists are saying that cutting spending now, in the midst of the worst economic downturn in 80 years is foolish to the point of ignorant, since some spending would get the economy going again.
That said, I know you dont' agree with that and that's fine. Let's not go over that road again.
Post a Comment