Last few years when the Dem's held both houses the Republicans stood united against almost every single thing the Democrats proposed. The Republicans now are somewhat divided in passing Boehner plan. It seems the curse of being the party in power has now been caught by the Republicans. The Republicans see that it is harder to be the party that has to actually make decision rather than to be the party that just votes NO! The Republicans have no big plan. I am slightly disappointed in the Boehner plan. Nine hundred somewhat billion over a decade is actually just 90 billion a year. The deficit is now 1.2 trillion and will only get as low as 600 billion in a few years then get even worse later on. This plan is maybe a baby step. I still would disagree with this bill as it is just cuts important programs and there are no tax increases. At least Reid's plan is twice as big and for that matter still has no tax increases. I still don't support Reid's plan as it would just be 200 billion a year which is a good start, but not enough, but we could close the rest of the deficit putting the taxes back to there 1990 levels. Where Clinton who also faced a deficit made tax increases and payed record amounts of the debt. It's funny Ried has a plan twice as big in just cuts while Boehner has just 900 billion. No wonder it he kept delaying his plan multiple times his plan is a joke. Even Bachman is against the bill, and the tea party part of congress is also very much against it. I am glad now to see the Democrats are united. To be quite honest we need to reduce entitlements, by increasing the medicare age and the retirement age to 70, while also stopping the Bush tax to all, end the mission in Afghanistan and Iraq, eliminate subsidies to big oil and finally pass bowl Simpson plan which will reduce the corporate tax rate and eliminate loopholes and increases revenue.
update: I support the Bowl Simpson plan, but I think we should eliminate loopholes and reduce rates only a little or nothing, because the U.S needs to balance the budget, but for a compromise I would agree with reducing corporate tax rates by 7% while eliminating loopholes, even though my ideal situation is eliminating all loopholes and no change to the tax rate.
"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children." A Liberal-supporting, environmentalist blog. We blog according to our opinions, not those of the party or government. Free speech must win and that's why we have this blog. The views of two Montrealers and a Libertarian.
Reduce entitlements? The Republicans have surely converted you. Entitlements are just 7% of the deficit problem yet they're what an increasingly large segment of Americans will be relying upon.
ReplyDeleteEnd the wars America will still be fighting 15-years form now if they don't. Cut America's insane military spending by at least half if not two-thirds. Eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Use genuine infrastructure spending to revitalize the American economy - in the short term and the long term.
You need to listen to Krugman, Stiglitz and Reich. Stop thinking the Democrats are any less corporatist than the Republicans. Stop hoping that Obama is progressive. That's all crap.
The Mound of sound
ReplyDeletewhat I meant by reduce entitlements isn't the entitlements themselves but entitlement spending which can be reduced actually by raising the retirement and medicare age, and cracking down on fraud. Eliminating the bush tax cuts on the rich alone won't help a lot. revenue would only go up 90 billion. The deficit is only going to get as low as 600 billion. We need to eliminate all tax cuts of bush. I do agree cutting military spending is important It will not fix the whole deficit problem of the future.
We don't need to hurt the people who use medicare to reduce spending. In fact a good portion of medicare can be saved due to fraud reduction.
The problem is that the worldwide NeoConservative "bowel movement" has created an idiotic assumption that "taxes are bad", and used their mainstream media might (Murdoch, Black, et al) to perpetuate that ridiculous idea. Forgetting the fundamental pretext as to why governments exist is just plain stupid.
ReplyDeleteUntil we realize that we can't run "structural deficits (see Dubya, and Harper)" and tax cuts increased yearly, we will have economic troubles. Governments need money to operate. There is a fallacy out there that governments waste more money than private corporations. Look at the WorldComs, Fannie Maes, Nortels, GMs, Chryslers, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanleys, etc. of the world tells you how much BS that really is. Far greater percentages of businesses go under every year compared to governments or crown corporations. Corporations gamble for their shareholders, and answer to no-one. Governments have to answer to EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN.
Time we grew up as a civilization and realized that.
@The Mound of Sound Do remember that there is a difference between discretionary spending and total spending
ReplyDelete@These companies (of which many would have fallen much longer ago had the government not sheltered them and given them massive tax breaks and free cash) would be accountable to investors and citizens if they were left to fend for themselves.
Also, a company must seek out investors who will give them their money. If a company is entirely corrupt, working on a failed business model, or posting losses for years in a row, people can decide not to give their money to them, and put it elsewhere. With a government, there is no way to say "No thanks, I would rather not give my taxes to you." One cannot simply decide to not give money to a corrupt government. One can, however, decide not to invest in, say, General Motors because of their irresponsible behavior or because they were on the verge of collapsing.