With the loss of the House seat in New York, it seems apparent that many Americans love to talk about a balanced budget, but are not really willing to do anything about it.
I actually find this frigtening. When the majority of this country becomes so dependent on the government, how will we sustain it?
We see all over Europe where they are having to scale back. We see Greece slipping into oblivian.
I would ask this question to my liberal colleagues on this board? Where will the money come from?
Yes, you can raise taxes on the rich, yes, you can raise corporate taxes, but both of these measures would not even cover the budget, much less start addressing the debt?
SO WHERE WILL IT COME FROM? I feel confident in saying that we are in an insustainable state, and the longer we put off the corrections that must be done, the worse it will be.
I HAVE SEEN THE REPUBLICANS PUT FORWARD SOME IDEAS, NOW I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR SOME FROM THE OTHER SIDE....
so the respondents can be very specific in their responses.
2011 budget is $3.8T. Revenue is estimated to be in the $2.5T to $2.6T range, hence how to cover a $1.2T to $1.3T deficit. Expect this level of deficits for the foreseeable future. If we revert to the Clinton era tax rates on the top rates only, per Obama, we would realize $70B a year in additional revenue. Growth rates, specifically GDP are anticipated to be in the 2-3% range for the foreseeable future. 2011 is projected to be closer to 2%.
-- Modified on 5/25/2011 11:19:33 PM
I would raise top marginal income taxes to pre-Reagan levels, eliminate capital gains and just tax it as income, and raise corporate taxes to be competitive with other FIRST world nations. See where that gets ya in your deficit. From there you start cutting, and start cutting big time.
Our biggest problem is that our economy isn't growing fast enough. Until we focus on grassroot main street economic growth (hell, economic stability would be nice) instead of focusing on Wall Street growth, then we'll be up shit's creek.
even i it does, we have already proven we can raise government spending at a rate that out-paces it, which is the track we are on.
You said yourself cut, and I agree. But here is the problem, the REAL savings come on three areas, Social Security, Medicare and Defense.
I am REALLY wanting to see specifics from the other side of the aisle. At least the Republicans have been willing to put SOMETHING out there, where is the leadership from the White House on this?
HUH??
" raise corporate taxes to be competitive with other FIRST world nations"
If we were to adjust our corporate tax rate to be 'competitive' with other first world nations we would SLASH our corporate tax rate.
We have the HIGHEST corporate tax rate in the world Willy. Its the biggest reason we lose so many jobs, and why so many corporations maintain shell companies in the very countries you think we need to raise corp taxes in order to compete with. Which you prefer Willy, collecting $0.00 with corporate taxes at their current 35% level, or collecting $500 million from the same company at a 20% corporate tax rate? (I randomly chose the tax revenue and tax rate for comparison, it shouldn't take an Einstein to figure out the benefits of collecting ANY amount of taxes rather than none at all)
Furthermore, even if we implement pre-Reagan tax levels, and tax investment returns as income, you still can't even cover half of our deficit. Not even close to half. Raise taxes all you want, you will still have in the neighborhood of $1 TRILLION in deficit spending to reduce. So again, for about the millionth time, WHAT do you plan to cut???
PS. Yes, we know you are going to say end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and slash defense spending. So lets assume we do that too, you will still have at a minimum HALF a trillion in deficit spending to eliminate. And that is assuming some deep cuts in defense spending.
Now tell us where the rest of the spending cuts from please.
"If we were to adjust our corporate tax rate to be 'competitive' with other first world nations we would SLASH our corporate tax rate."
Really? So we would give Bank of America an even bigger tax cut when they pay ZERO taxes and 43% of their profits came from US taxpayers in 2009?
"We have the HIGHEST corporate tax rate in the world Willy."
How many times do you right wingers repeat bullshit, before you look it up yourselves to see if it's true? Reality check: companies in most parts of the industrialized world pay low corporate income tax rates because they ALSO pay Value Added Taxes. Look at the figures yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
"Its the biggest reason we lose so many jobs"
Really? So as corporations have had to pay less and less and less in taxes, then while that was happening, jobs should have come back to American shores, right? What happened instead? They went to Mexico, and then China and India.
Logically, you would therefore conclude that either 1) cutting corporate taxes INCREASES offshoring, or 2) corporate taxes have shit to do with offshoring.
Maybe you ought to take a closer look at our trade policy, sweetie.
"Furthermore, even if we implement pre-Reagan tax levels, and tax investment returns as income, you still can't even cover half of our deficit."
Nonsense. NOBODY is talking about getting rid of the Reagan tax cuts, just the Bush tax cuts. Getting rid of the Bush tax cuts would get ya in under a trillion. Returning capital gains to their historic norm of 35%, and a top marginal income tax rate of 70% from 35% where it is now? I'm betting we wouldn't have much of a deficit left.
"So again, for about the millionth time, WHAT do you plan to cut???"
I've harped on this before. Check this out.
http://www.federalbudget.com
1) Social security/Medicare isn't on the federal budget. Cutting either won't balance shit in the budget. These programs are funding by their own special tax. FICA taxes (payroll taxes). So that is a seperate issue.
2) Where are the problem areas in spending? It's obvious. Defense, Treasury, Health & Human Services.
We gotta cut defense big time. Defense spending costs us even more money later. You build a bomb or a plane, then you gotta warehouse them. You gotta pay people to guard them. You use those weapons you create veterans who will need even more spending. We need to get the fuck out of Iraq & Afghanistan (nothing more than a massive corporate subsidy to the oil industry anyway), close bases in Europe and Japan, and scale things down. Do we really need to spend 45% of the world's entire defense spending? At 850 billion a year, we need to consider a 50% cut in defense.
In Treasury, a lot of that is interest on the debt. I believe a lot of our intelligence operations are still run out of there. Regardless, we need to seriously cut back on our intelligence operations. Did you read this?
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/
Lastly, we got Health and Human Services. Much of this is R&D into new drugs and treatments...which we then give away to for-profit companies to make a buck off our taxpayer dime. That has to end.
Beyond that, we need to cut HHS spending until we can afford it.
Another place we could make big cuts is in Agriculture. Quite frankly, I think we ought to consider eliminating the Ag Dept. Most Americans aren't farmers anymore, and this agency has been turned over to be a cash cow for Monsanto and ADM.
We need to get rid of Homeland Security. What a bunch of dipshits and jackoffs they got working over there. This is what happens when you make it illegal for federal workers to have a union. You get retards making 8 bucks an hour working over there, and then the agency wonders why they have a massive turnover problem.
We ought to cut HUD. We should focus on rebuilding our infrastructure instead.
It won't amount to much, but we should cut international aid.
And then on top of that, keeping the 5% cuts that Obama has put on every agency, then I think we'd be golden. If we do this, I'm betting we'd have a surplus, even with our shit economy right now.
-- Modified on 5/26/2011 7:53:51 AM
It's bad enough that you display your arrogance with each and every comment. But now you respond in this fashion.
It is quite clear that you dismiss much of what Sins says because she wasn't born with a penis. But keep referring to her in such a tone as above ("Maybe you ought to take a closer look at our trade policy, sweetie.") and you may find yourself without one as well.
Can't wait to read her next response to you. Might make an otherwise dull Thursday a very memorable one. LOL!
When you hear the same talking points over and over and over again, it's a little hard not to be condescending. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. These right wing talking points always fall short when it comes to the evidence. This is why you people should fact check your own rhetoric. Not bothering isn't just stupid, it's lazy. Besides, Sin has called me a lot worse than "sweetie".
But, I can see how that's a sore spot with you, PW, since I made you run away from the board for 6 months.
especially arrogant, shit-stirring, lazy and "un-extraordinary" pieces of flesh like you.
My comment had nothing to do with "talking points" or the content of Sins' post. It strictly dealt with your degrading way of addressing her as "sweetie."
I don't give a shit what your political stances are or how many links you can provide to justify them.
I know, though, that there is one thing that can never be justified. And that is the way you talk down to people and act as though you are the "all-knowing" one.
But I do love to read Sins' posts and see how adeptly and intelligently she handles your shit. It makes for fine reading.
And a lot of laughs while watching you get skewered.
You're not gonna...
"Nonsense. NOBODY is talking about getting rid of the Reagan tax cuts, just the Bush tax cuts. Getting rid of the Bush tax cuts would get ya in under a trillion."
You just did in the post right above this one.
"Really? So we would give Bank of America an even bigger tax cut when they pay ZERO taxes and 43% of their profits came from US taxpayers in 2009?"
You totally missed the point. We have alot of corporations who create shell headquarters everywhere but here, in order to hide their revenues offshore. They are paying taxes in those countries they hide their money in (if those countries aren't getting their piece of the pie, they have no incentive to offer tax havens). What good is a 35% corporate tax rate when companies simply hide their revenues elsewhere? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if we drop our corporate tax rate to compete with these counties, there will no longer be any incentive to hide money offshore.
"We gotta cut defense big time.....At 850 billion a year, we need to consider a 50% cut in defense."
Again, you just proved my point. Even if we COMPLETELY eliminate ALL defense spending - every last penny - we are still roughly $800 Billion over budget. If we choose a more feasible figure, lets say a 20% cut to defense spending ($160 billion), that will only get us down to about 1.3 TRILLION over budget.
"Regardless, we need to seriously cut back on our intelligence operations."
For fuck's sake Willy, make up your mind. Just a few days ago you posted a thread wondering how right wingers were going to "weasel" out of this one. Remember? Its still on the first page. Able Danger? Ring a bell? Do you want to cut intelligence, or not? So what you REALLY mean is that its OK for Democrats to slash defense and intelligence spending, but you'll beat Republicans over the head if they simply 're-organize'.
"Lastly, we got Health and Human Services. Much of this is R&D into new drugs and treatments...which we then give away to for-profit companies to make a buck off our taxpayer dime. That has to end."
HUH? Where the hell did you get this idea? Most new drugs are developed by small start up companies (read that not gov't funded), who then sell the patent to the big boys IF they hit the jackpot and come up with a viable new drug.
Interetsing factoid Willy - fully 97% of ALL drugs currently available on the market were developed in the United States. Not England, not Canada, not Switzerland, not France, not Spain, not Japan. HERE. All of the above countries COMBINED account for a paltry 3% of all medicines currently in use. It is NOT an accident that the country that does not have a national health care system is also the most innovative country in the world for new medical technology.
Laproscopic surgery - the single most important medical development in history, was developed here. So were organ transplants. So was the heart-lung bypass machine, the MRI, CAT scan, and PET scan.
So yes, lets nationalize the most innovative medical system in the world.
"We ought to cut HUD. We should focus on rebuilding our infrastructure instead."
Now this, I agree completely on. Any attempt at cutting HUD will be labelled as a direct assault on minorities though. So good luck with that.
"And then on top of that, keeping the 5% cuts that Obama has put on every agency, then I think we'd be golden. If we do this, I'm betting we'd have a surplus, even with our shit economy right now."
Golden? Lets add some things up. Eliminating Bush's tax cuts for the rich would produce at most about $100 billion in additional revenues (this is a very rosey estimate, but I'll go with it). Cutting fully 50% of the defense budget would save another $450 billion (again, a wild overestimate, but what the hell, we'll go with it). So we are up to $550 billion in deficit reduction. Great job. Only another $1.1 trillion to go. Cutting HUD would save us perhaps a few billion. You also mentioned Dept of Homeland Security (another agency I agree is 100% redundant top to bottom), and Dept of Ag. Lets say we save another 200 billion by eliminating both depts altogether (again, another rosey overestimate).
Now we are down to rougly $850 billion in deficit spending. So you think just a simple 5% across the board cut would cover it? Sorry. At around $3.4 trillion, a 5% cut would only net us additional savings of $17 billion. Still leaving us somewhere around $800 billion in deficit spending.
Nearly 1 dollar for every 2 dollars we spend is borrowed. To put it simply, we have to slash our spending by 30% if we are to balance the budget. At best, Dems propose using a scalpel to balance the budget, when the only thing that will do it is using an axe. A big axe.
"You just did in the post right above this one."
Yeh, I guess I'm a minority of one.
"We have alot of corporations who create shell headquarters everywhere but here, in order to hide their revenues offshore."
Then prosecute them for tax evasion.
"Even if we COMPLETELY eliminate ALL defense spending - every last penny - we are still roughly $800 Billion over budget."
That's why I included HHS and Treasury in what desperately needs to be cut. By the way, I didn't pull a 50% cut out of my ass. Lawrence Korb (a former assisstant Sec. of Defense under Reagan, mind you) said we would get a BETTER defense if we cut spending by 50%. And he said that back during the Clinton administration when it only 275 billion a year budget.
"Able Danger? Ring a bell? Do you want to cut intelligence, or not?"
Now you're confusing Willy's opinions for a news article I posted. Sigh. Bin Laden is dead and gone. The mission has been accomplished. It's time to cut back.
"HUH? Where the hell did you get this idea? Most new drugs are developed by small start up companies (read that not gov't funded), who then sell the patent to the big boys IF they hit the jackpot and come up with a viable new drug."
Bullshit. The vast majority of all funding for new drug R&D comes from the National Institutes of Health.
"Interetsing factoid Willy - fully 97% of ALL drugs currently available on the market were developed in the United States. Not England, not Canada, not Switzerland, not France, not Spain, not Japan. HERE."
And those same big pharma companies still make a profit when Canada buys those drugs for a fraction of the price Americans must buy them for.
"It is NOT an accident that the country that does not have a national health care system is also the most innovative country in the world for new medical technology."
Actually, Europe has been outspending us on Medical R&D for over a decade now.
"So yes, lets nationalize the most innovative medical system in the world."
I suggest you look at a country by country comparison of life expectancy rates.
"Now this, I agree completely on. Any attempt at cutting HUD will be labelled as a direct assault on minorities though. So good luck with that."
So you agree with cutting things that minorities would perceive as a direct assault? Anytime you help people, we gotta cut it, right?
The problem with HUD is that we don't use it as a vehicle for home ownership. If we did that, there would be none of these inner city "projects". The housing market has changed so radically, that HUD, Fannie, and Freddie is now redunacy. There is a lot of work to be done on urban renewal, but we need to get out of the housing business.
"Golden? Lets add some things up. Eliminating Bush's tax cuts for the rich would produce at most about $100 billion in additional revenues (this is a very rosey estimate, but I'll go with it)."
I didn't say cut Bush's tax cuts for the rich. I said get rid of the Bush tax cuts. I won't give you estimates. I'll give you the actual figure that CNN came up with. It's costing us $370 billion a year.
"Cutting fully 50% of the defense budget would save another $450 billion (again, a wild overestimate, but what the hell, we'll go with it). So we are up to $550 billion in deficit reduction. Great job. Only another $1.1 trillion to go. Cutting HUD would save us perhaps a few billion. You also mentioned Dept of Homeland Security (another agency I agree is 100% redundant top to bottom), and Dept of Ag. Lets say we save another 200 billion by eliminating both depts altogether (again, another rosey overestimate)."
Instead of estimating, look at the actual figures. I even provided you the link. federalbudget.com
HUD: $43.7 bil. (2010)
DHS: $55.1 billion (2010)
USDA: $132.3 billion (est. 2011)
This doesn't even include the vast intelligence spending, where it's damn near impossible to find out what it even costs us. I've read figures as low as $80 billion.
"Now we are down to rougly $850 billion in deficit spending. So you think just a simple 5% across the board cut would cover it? Sorry. At around $3.4 trillion, a 5% cut would only net us additional savings of $17 billion. Still leaving us somewhere around $800 billion in deficit spending."
You conveniently forgot to mention ending the REAGAN tax cuts.
I'm not interested in a 30% cut in spending. We still have a 14 trillion dollar monkey on our backs. We need to cut closer to 50%, plus raise taxes. We should have a strong surplus, and continue to run a surplus for the next 15 years.
BOA paid nearly 2 billion in state and foreign and local income taxes in 2010 and probably a comparable amount in 2009.
The only reason BOA did not pay federal income tax in those years is because they had no taxable income. The tax code permits a corporation to deduct losses as well as expenses and BOA has no peer when it comes to losing money. In fact, I can't remember the last time BOA had a trailing 12 month p/E ratio.
Moreover, the losses were so big they not only zeroed out what otherwise would have been taxable income but exceeded it by a billion or so. Bc the tax code permits a corporation to carry forward losses, BOA may not be paying income taxes for years.
So to imply that BOA got a " tax cut" in 2009 that other corporations did not get is completely wrong, or that there is something unfair about BOA's zero fed income tax liability, is simply wrong..
The only reason BOA did not pay federal income tax in those years is because they had no taxable income. The tax code permits a corporation to deduct losses as well as expenses and BOA has no peer when it comes to losing money. In fact, I can't remember the last time BOA had a trailing 12 month p/E ratio.
Moreover, the losses were so big they not only zeroed out what otherwise would have been taxable income but exceeded it by a billion or so. Bc the tax code permits a corporation to carry forward losses, BOA may not be paying income taxes for years.
So to imply that BOA got a " tax cut" in 2009 that other corporations did not get is completely wrong, or that there is something unfair about BOA's zero fed income tax liability, is simply wrong..
They're not ALL unprofitable, are they?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aj8pE9CK5k
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/03/ten_giant_us_companies_avoidin.html
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/study-tallies-corporations-not-paying-income-tax/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aj8pE9CK5k
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/03/ten_giant_us_companies_avoidin.html
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/study-tallies-corporations-not-paying-income-tax/
The stated Corporate tax rate is pretty high, however you determine the effective tax rate you have to look at the 10K's filled by each Corp. Intel's effective tax rate was something like 17% last year. Thats after all the deductions, write off and Corp tax breaks.
The real reason we loose jobs is because of labor cost not taxes. If you elimated business taxes cost of production would still be too high to compete in most industries.
End the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and slash defense spending.
Think about this. Ending the wars will bring troops back. That will probably raise unemployment. Reduce defense spending will mean job loss. Big cut, lots of jobs.
Face it, we are bankrupt. We should have gone into a depression in 2008 with big deflation. instead we went 14 T in debt with no way to recover except on the backs of the middle and lower classes. You can argue tax the rich all you want. There are no poor Senators in DC. We are bankrupt. The goverment knows it and so does Oboma. They are stalling untill after the elections 2012.
We have been living in a fairy dream world for far too long, and we are running out of options.
Option 1) We keep doing what we've been doing, and wait for the Rapture to come.
Option 2) Default on our debt. You tell me what consequences of that would be.
Option 3) We raise taxes dramatically, and cut spending just as dramatically.
One Republican plan, and I don't wanna say his name, but his initials are Paul Ryan, is to privatize Medicare, and cut top marginal income taxes to 25%. This would have the net effect of stimulating supply and cutting demand in the economy as a whole. The Rapture looks like a more viable solution.
Until we as a society deal with the fundamental problem that we are using debt creation as a replacement for income, then we will remain at the mercy of the pied piper when the bill comes due.
Let's look at Medicare. While Paul Ryan might commiserate with a neo-liberal like Bill Clinton with it's funamental "math problem", it fails to address the the root cause of the issue. That is, why are medical care costs increasing? Health insurance premiums have increased 131% in the last 10 years. WHY? Have Americans received coverage that makes them 131% healthier? When a for-profit company must make higher profits quarter after quarter, then health care costs will continue to increase. If you want to get health care costs under control, then you deliver health care by way of a NOT-for-profit institution. Government run or privately run, it doesn't make much of a difference.
But shifting the costs onto each American individually, without the ability to collectively bargain for bulk prices, then you might as well pass a tax increase that only people with limited incomes have to pay, and wait for the economy to get that much shitter.
Ok Willy....WHAT spending shall we cut? Please spare us the knee jerk "lets just cut defense spending".
Say what you wish about Paul Ryan, so far he is the lone voice offering a concrete plan to reduce spending. All we hear from Dems is the sound of crickets chirping.
We need to reduce spending at a minimum by $1.6 trillion. I would love to hear exactly how Dems plan to do it.
A 50% cut in defense and health and human services would shave 800 billion or so off the deficit.
Get rid of the Ag Dept., we now got 900 billion.
Get rid of Homeland Security, we now got a trillion.
Get rid of HUD, we now got 1.1 trillion.
Across the board 5% cuts, you might even get up to 1.2 trillion.
That covers most of the deficit. Now, raise taxes on top of that, and see where it gets ya. Return capital gains to 35%, corporate taxes to 50%, and top marginal income taxes to 70%.
"You will get a SERIOUS reply from me...
Snowman39
when you ppost something that truly warrants debate and is not just left wing dribble...
Why do I sense A LOT of sarcastic remarks in your future."
DITTO for your Right Wing dribble.
(and I am not your "colleague.")
Expect more of the same, snowclown. Sarcasm works both ways.
...there is very little that Snow and I agree with, but he's a good guy. There's not too many conservatives here you can carry a thoughtful debate here, and keep it civil. Snow is one of them. He's partisan as hell, but civil.
If I may be so bold...
I think it is safe to say Willy and I want the same things...
1) Get the country out of debt
2) Increase the US GDP
3) Best education possible for our children
4) Opportunity and Prosperity for everyone
There are others as well. Where Willy and I disagree is HOW TO GET THERE.
The key to being civil in a debate is to remember that the person you are talking to has good intentions and a good heart, but lacks the understanding of how to best make these events occur. (I would say that about Willy, I believe he would say that about me).
When you drop to personal attacks, you show your own ignorance and inability to have a rational debate. We are all human and do this from time to time (ask Ed Schultz) in heated debate, but we only demean ourselves.
But when that is the mantra for a poster on this board or anywhere else, it is easy to summize this is an individual not worthy of debate or our time.
Just my .02
and then puts on the faux mantle of reasonableness. Can you spell hypocrisy? Your post would be sad if it wasn't so unintentionally funny.
c'mon. All of us flame from time to time. It doesn't mean that we can't have rational civil debates. That's not hypocrisy. It's bemoaning that the people who post here aren't perfect.
As for that other guy, I'm not sure if you've been reading his rants. And I doubt he needs you to defends his posts. I find that more than ironic.
Final point: none of this is a big deal. I just don't like people who, when asked for a serious response descend to flaming and sarcasm, then expect to be treated seriously when they post something they think is worthwhile. That, to me, is hypocrisy. Sorry if you're unable to recognize it.
As for the other guy, I'm simply ignoring him from now on. He's joined one other idiot who shall remain nameless. You, OTOH, I'll be happy to chat with.
You really equivocate a sarcastic remark with an all out flame??
Man, if you are that touchy, you might consider another hobby besides the boards.
One thing you need to undetstand is I look for two things from the board, a good political debate which I can often get from Willy, and an good laugh, that, well, let me hust say thank you
That is the element you miss....
I like good sarcasm, but there has GOT to be an element of humor, or its just silly remarks (like your post here).
Me indicating your support the tea party when it is blantantly obviously you never would is humor (if I say so myself).
The Phrase "Bwaaahahahaha", does not constitute humor in any fashion.
If you want to "return fire", by all means, but do us all a favor and at least make it worth the time of opening up the post, not dribble like this one you just posted...
Snow, you wouldn't know "humor" or "sarcasm" if they bit you on the ass. As for "dribble," perhaps you meant "drivel." But it's clear your posts suffer from not being re-read by you before you send them. As for "Bwaahahaha," I just call that a sound effect. Never said it constitutes "humor." But you, as usual, will argue the most trivial points and offer up red herring arguments. You are not worth the time it takes to post, hence I will just ignore you.
"So dependent on the government," but you are just too blind to see it. Unless you live on a ranch or farm, and completely self-sufficient, you rely on the government for most every thing in your life. I spent time on a ranch in the remote Bitteroot mountain ranch in Idaho. It was completely self-sufficient. Yet, it was a homestead, thus my relatives relied on the government's good graces to make the land available for such. And, the one lane dirt road that served as access to all the ranches in the valley was made by the Army Corp of Engineers, and maintained by the U.S. Forestry Service. And, the minimal electric service and party-line phone; it's installation up and down the valley by the utility companies, was subsidized by the government. Well, a guess we were relatively self-sufficient.
Point I'm making; we are all very much dependent on the government.
If you think what republicans put forward ideas, you don't have clue. Get this, national budgets are not analogues to Balancing your check, paying your credit card or your mortgage. Some people call these people who promise you plan to pay of your 30 mortgage in 10, republican plan is exactly like it.
National budgets are incredibly complex especially the largest national budget on the planet. Republicans have stupified the budget so, stupid people can understand.
FYI, President Obama has put forward budget, and you don't consider them ideas because it is not stupified!
above post????
At least he warns us in the subject line of his post. We read it and we truly "don't know" what the hell he is trying to say . . . .
This is typical AF gibberish. His posts make absolutely no sense. Best guess is that AF forgot to take his medication, which if I was a betting man, it would be Ritalin.
OK, here goes. What AF wants to say is that national budgets are much more complex than just balancing your checkbook. Further, that Republicans have dumbed down the debate to the point where many people really think it's that simple. Last, read Obama's budget if you want a truly sensible approach.
How's that? Please explain what this means if I understood? My guess is, it's a bad thing. And, no, I am not on Ritalin.
stupefied . . . . . .
It just takes one to know one?
Try balancing your check book over the weekend. Not a penny difference between what the says and your check book says. You may use Quicken. Once you accomplish that, I shall try to explain.
-- Modified on 5/26/2011 6:14:52 PM
FYI, President Obama has put forward budget, and you don't consider them ideas because it is not stupified!
-- Modified on 5/26/2011 3:00:26 PM
It was a meaningless procedural vote and part of the DC shell game, not a defeat for Obama.
-- Modified on 5/27/2011 4:50:01 AM
And that the vote on the Ryan plan was political posturing to force Republicans to vote for it and give the Democrats something to bash them with at home. All of it was political theater.
FYI, President Obama has put forward budget, and you don't consider them ideas because it is not stupified!
until you run out of money". If everyone is working for the government who is going to be left to pay for all the programs.
In the Sacramento Bee the 1000 highest paid local government workers earned over 171 million dollars last year. That's not including the pension the taxpayers are on obligated to pay. For example The City of Rocklin manager with a formula of 2 percent at 55 means at age 63 with 25 years of service the taxpayers of Rocklin will have to pay him $200,000 a year for the rest of his life.
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”