Boehner tells Obama No.

brett, are these economists you mention the same economists that agreed with the Obama Stimulus package and it's sure-fire guarantee to bring unemployment back under 8%? That's the only weakness I immediately see in your response.
 
dalhorn-

I could cite articles and economists but you'd probably doubt them as well. So how about instead just think about it for a second-

If an entity that is typically around 30% of the economy (jobs, GDP etc.) suddenly reduces jobs and related GDP 5%, while spending does indeed go down- so does the revenue that moves around the economy from the lost direct and indirect jobs. If benefits shrink, so does disposable income.

Before your temper flares- that doesn't mean people don't think entitlement programs shouldn't be modified (most do, including Obama etc.) but the associated revenues are going to likely go down more than the cost savings. Until those affected learn to adjust and adapt- the budget deficit will actually increase.

We don't need an expert economist really to figure that out. This is why a more balanced approach is recommended. It means reversing tax levels to where they were in our last boom- 1998, for the upper 1%. It means ignoring Tea Party propaganda when they whine about the bottom 40% who pay zero to little in income taxes (but not other taxes) considering a 1% hike on the top 1% raises as much money as a modest tax raise on the entire bottom 50% does. And this 1% hike only takes you to where rates were in 1998, when the rich did just fine and created jobs. Second- it involves becoming more efficient- new tax code, reduced military waste, and clearly- entitlement spending changes.

Simply cutting jobs and benefits without any real thought, like what the Tea Party suggests, while also lowering taxes- is probably the worst idea out there if your goal is to balance a budget and create jobs for the overall economy.
 
calm down, brett. you take things a bit too personally sometimes. I wasn't doubting you, you're just the messenger in the talking points.

I'm just suggesting that you may be too quick to discount some dissenting opinions based on what or whom you believe to trust, even though the people whom you rely on for your stance have had or may have poor track records at proving their points.

In this thread, I have not advocated anything the Tea Party stands for, nor have I bashed any opinions that you or anyone else brought forth. I was merely pointing out that your rationale seemed somewhat short-sighted, based on what data you choose to accept as the most accurate.

Back to the OP (and comments above), I cannot rationally be convinced that the WH did not have a motive behind the date and time that they chose for the President to speak to Congress. Carney is a lousy liar, and I'd love to play a game of Texas Hold'Em with him. Why, if he knew he was going to give a speech (and told the media that he was prepping one weeks ago), didn't they bother to give a good and legitimate look at a calendar of media events before they scheduled a time with Congress? Surely if Obama's inside men are actually this incompetent and not strategical, he would kick them all to the curb without a second thought.
 
also, brett--I could bring up recent failures in the alternative energy markets, citing that solar energy tech is not economical, but you'd probably doubt that as well.

See what I did there? Please don't confuse doubting one's sources with refusing to accept them. Accepting something just because one source cites it so can get you very close to becoming an aggy.
 
I'm calm dalhorn- not mad at all. Enjoy this discussion- I think many of us agree (with some biases) Obama both screwed up and acted professionally. He now has to challenge an NFL debut- which sucks for him.

Re: the above- it's an economic discussion where as I point out- the Paul Ryan MO has major flaws whether or not you agree with his politics.
 
brett, this is where I begin to agree with you. Obama's a beanpole, and getting cross with the NFL just doesn't make for a good strategy. For all of our sakes, let's just hope he can fit his speech in the brief window during halftime.
 
hillary1.jpg
107408-hillary_secretary_state.jpg
 
I love it that Dems talk all the time about "compromise". From all I've seen, "compromise" means STFU and do what we want. I don't remember them making any compromises when they shoved the healthcare bill through right before Christmas without a single R vote. And how could Republicans compromise on the budget when the President has yet to produce a budget? I'm pretty sure he doesn't want the electorate to see in black and white what he might propose.
brickwall.gif
 
Compromise is if the one group wants a spending freeze and the other group wants a $1 trillion increase in spending, then they settle on $500 billion in spending and call it a $500 billion cut.
 
That is a $500 billion cut to projected deficits. That's what we're concerned with, deficits. Ya'll seem to be concerned with gutting the government and crippling the economy in the process.
 
Yes serious, if you balanced the budget today, the economy would be thrown into a long term recession. You can't pull 1.5 trillion out of the economy over night. What I think needs to happen is short term stimulus focused on creative ways of stimulating job growth paired with a long term plan with hard cuts including serious entitlement reform. At the center of entitlement reform needs to be raising the retirement age but should also be coupled with raising taxes and cutting benefits. Like in the Ryan Plan set the changes down the road, so it does not affect generations about to retire. With any luck, the economy nwould start growing again, further closing the deficits, paired with the benefits of guaranteed cuts. I do not think what the republicans are proposing is the way to go, and I don't think the democrats reluctance to reform entitlements is reasonable either. Politicians committed to a compromise could come up with a plan that both provided stimulus and the long term cuts and entitlement reform. I think a democratic president and republican congress is the only way we're going to get entitlement reform, because the democratic caucus is so entrenched on maintaining entitlements. There's huge opportunity to do some historic reform right now that will be of great benefit to our nation in the long run, but compromise is essential to this.
 
I misread your point...if it's the spending increases already planned in future years then the compromise solution would be effective. No one's proposing huge spending increases. All parties are focused on long term deficit reduction. It's just a question of how we go about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top