The waste of the vote argument suggest that only voting for the person who wins is a good use of the vote.
If you voted against Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan... you wasted your vote.
Y'all are seriously not convinced by now that this shit is all rigged?
I'm convinced and also would like to note from my perspective the main difference between the U.S. and Russia, GB, France, etc is that we usually pick a friendlier face to push our sh*t in on the reg
The waste of the vote argument suggest that only voting for the person who wins is a good use of the vote.
If you voted against Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan... you wasted your vote.
That's not my argument. It's a waste because the election is too important to use a precious vote on a third party candidate. It's a vote for Romney. Why not just vote for him?
The waste of the vote argument suggest that only voting for the person who wins is a good use of the vote.
If you voted against Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan... you wasted your vote.
That's not my argument. It's a waste because the election is too important to use a precious vote on a third party candidate. It's a vote for Romney. Why not just vote for him?
This is a very short-sighted perspective.
Both parties are essentially criminal organizations that prey on the American people and ultimately serve the same dark masters. The false Dem/Rep dichotomy is some bogus good cop/bad cop shit that belongs on an episode of Cagney and Lacey. If a third party/independent presence does not establish itself in government, this country is basically doomed.
Obviously no such candidate has a chance now, but you've got to open the door and set a precedent.
The parasite has grown too hungry, and demands too much.
If both parties are the same, why does one keep gay people from marrying, why does one want to shutter planned parenthood, why does one want to keep people from voting, why does one want to crush the unions, why does one want a Christian theocracy, why is one spending hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat the other side?
If both parties are the same, why does one keep gay people from marrying, why does one want to shutter planned parenthood, why does one want to keep people from voting, why does one want to crush the unions, why does one want a Christian theocracy, why is one spending hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat the other side?
If both parties are the same, why does one keep gay people from marrying, why does one want to shutter planned parenthood, why does one want to keep people from voting, why does one want to crush the unions, why does one want a Christian theocracy, why is one spending hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat the other side?
You didn't understand my post at all.
All of the issues you mentioned are used as shiny red herrings to distract you from the fact that you are being robbed blind.
And why not spend millions? - it isn't their money, it's money they conned people like you into donating by dangling the pretty little fish in front of them.
People like me? I haven't donated. I just vote. But thanks for judging me, I hope I can be so saavy in the ways of the world one day like you. I too hope to be enlightened and throw off the shackles of the oppression.
*edit
You know what? Fuck you. Telling me my concerns are nothing but "pretty little fish". Fuck You.
People like me? I haven't donated. I just vote. But thanks for judging me, I hope I can be so saavy in the ways of the world one day like you. I too hope to be enlightened and throw off the shackles of the oppression.
*edit
You know what? Fuck you. Telling me my concerns are nothing but "pretty little fish". Fuck You.
I think HL only meant "people who believe there is a major difference between the two parties"...those are the folks who give money.
Let's face it....we never had a President, Dem or Rep, that even came out in support of gay marriage until a few weeks ago....and none of them have ever tried to make it legal.
Of all the things that need to be fixed in this country, Gay Marriage should be pretty low on the list of priorities.
But these clowns, on both sides, will wave these emotional issues in front of the public and for the most part they are nothing but distractions.
I don't find taking away many many women's only access to a doctor away a "distraction"...I don't find trying to take away people's right to vote a "distraction"...I don't find the passion people have in denying other people their rights a "distraction"
The phrase "people like you" in a face to face discussion would have me on the verge of throwing a punch. t's an insult only used by the arrogant.
Putting all policy aside for a second, when's the last time Americans elected the less-likable candidate? Obviously, a lot of people hate Obama, for reasons ranging from completely valid to utterly ridiculous, but no one likes Romney. Americans have a clear record of voting for people they'd like to have a beer with, and I don't think anyone wants to hang with Mittens.
Also, effete Massachusetts dudes wholly lacking charisma have a pretty poor record over the last few decades. My money's on Obama, but not much.
Yep...pretty much my sentiments exactly.
Plus, not to sound like an MSNBC segment but, I don't see Romney's regurgitation of the trickle down approach resonating with the people's perception of the current economy.
I don't find taking away many many women's only access to a doctor away a "distraction"...I don't find trying to take away people's right to vote a "distraction"...I don't find the passion people have in denying other people their rights a "distraction"
The phrase "people like you" in a face to face discussion would have me on the verge of throwing a punch. t's an insult only used by the arrogant.
I understand where you're coming from but with the economic catastrophe on our doorstep it's like focusing on a flat tire when the vehicle has no engine. They both need to be fixed but it's clear which needs to be fixed first.
I don't find taking away many many women's only access to a doctor away a "distraction"...I don't find trying to take away people's right to vote a "distraction"...I don't find the passion people have in denying other people their rights a "distraction"
The phrase "people like you" in a face to face discussion would have me on the verge of throwing a punch. t's an insult only used by the arrogant.
I understand where you're coming from but with the economic catastrophe on our doorstep it's like focusing on a flat tire when the vehicle has no engine. They both need to be fixed but it's clear which needs to be fixed first.
Fine. But I don't feel that my voting for Obama instead of Kaptain Kolob and trickle down part IV is some sort of participation in a conspiracy. I feel that keeping the wannabe scalias off of the supreme court is just as important for the future of the US. The economy is moving forward slowly and I would rather stay on the path of it creeping instead of cut and slash that would only help the very wealthy. I do not buy this "we need a businessman" bullshit. The constitution is not a business plan, the role of government is not to turn a profit for a few shareholders, the role of government is to look out for the best interests if it's citizens. I do not find a rich kid who managed to get richer on the backs of the less fortunate to be impressive nor do I find it to be a qualification to guide a country to prosperity.
The waste of the vote argument suggest that only voting for the person who wins is a good use of the vote.
If you voted against Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan... you wasted your vote.
That's not my argument. It's a waste because the election is too important to use a precious vote on a third party candidate. It's a vote for Romney. Why not just vote for him?
This is a very short-sighted perspective.
Both parties are essentially criminal organizations that prey on the American people and ultimately serve the same dark masters. The false Dem/Rep dichotomy is some bogus good cop/bad cop shit that belongs on an episode of Cagney and Lacey. If a third party/independent presence does not establish itself in government, this country is basically doomed.
Obviously no such candidate has a chance now, but you've got to open the door and set a precedent.
The parasite has grown too hungry, and demands too much.
People like you are the reason that people like me need to stay politically active and informed, and not let the inmates take control of the asylum.
I do not find a rich kid who managed to get richer on the backs of the less fortunate to be impressive nor do I find it to be a qualification to guide a country to prosperity.
I have some first hand experience with Bain and will share my anecdotal story here only because it may add a perspective that is not usually related by the Media. This is by no means an attempt to defend, support or make excuses for Mr. Romney or his company. It???s simply my experience and perspective???.take it or leave it.
The company I work for has been in business for 93 years and is solely owned by the family who started it in 1919. Over that time the company has had good times and has struggled at times. Being a family owned business it tends to treat their employees (16,000) like family. The company had its most successful period in the 70???s and 80???s??????the 90???s and 00???s have been a lot tougher. We are a manufacturer with a dedicated sales force and we do business in every country on earth except for three. In my 32 years of employment we have never had layoffs but we are below average on the pay scale typically found in this industry. Security and Benefits > Big Salary. (Hook-Up knows a little about us as he did have a job interview a couple of years back).
In the late 90???s the company hired Bain to come in and see how they could improve our operations. They had a ???team leader??? that headed up the project and his team was made up of young Ivy League and other highly regarded college grads. Their task was to look at us strictly from a business viewpoint which is hard to do sometimes when you have existing personal relationships with the employees. To say they were ???cold and calculating??? would be accurate. They were also very expensive. They were given full access to our entire company and for just over a year they reviewed all the aspects of the company including manufacturing processes, inventory control, logistics, computer programs, internal processes and employee efficiency. This was something that had gone unchecked for many years and which wasn???t necessary during the good times(we were successful despite any shortcomings) but was starting to be a problem during the lean(er) times.
At the end of their study they made recommendations to the owners on how to improve many of these areas. This included trimming down the product line to remove those items that weren???t pulling their weight, reduce inventory by consolidating similar products, and subsequently reducing staff as the first two steps allowed the company to be run with a more streamlined number of associates. They also suggested changing some processes that would be just as effective with less people. And last but not least they pointed out that our employees performance was not measured in a way to determine if they were performing their job function well or not. In my view all of these things were positive and needed to get, and keep, the company on the right track.
The owners chose to implement some of the ideas but not others. They hired a few of the young people who worked for Bain to stay and help make sure these programs were implemented correctly. They decided not to reduce staff even if these new ideas would afford them to. The truth is the company was not in dire straits when Bain came in and needed just a few ???tweaks??? to help keep it upright and profitable. The Bain folks explained to me on more than one occasion that this was not typical of what they did. Usually they were called in when a company was going under water for the third time and they had to make much more drastic changes to try to rescue the company. And many times it didn???t work, they were too far gone and even after cutting large numbers of employees and taking other harsh steps the companies would go under. Of course they would have gone under anyway and they looked at their successes as miracle and their failures as inevitable.
Now some 10+ years later, and with the economy still stale, we are having to make some of the changes they originally suggested that we chose to ignore. We???re hoping it???s not too late and some feel it was a mistake to wait this long. The reality is that a company has to make money. It can???t spend more than it takes in which is nothing more than common sense. If I thought Mitt Romney was going to take this kind of approach with the government I would be supporting him 100%. But I don???t think he will, or that he could even accomplish this if he wanted to. There are too many corrupt and broken things in the tax vs. spend ratio that it???s not going to be fixed by being proactive but is doomed to being rebuilt after it crashes and burns. No one, rich or poor, want to face the reality that is upon us and throwing more money at these problems is not the answer. The government is not a business but it can not spend more than it takes in???that???s not a Dem or Rep problem???that???s reality.
When Bain was hired to do their thing in the business world people lost their jobs, companies went out of business and Bain got paid very well regardless of the ultimate outcome. I can see how that would come off as mercenary and possibly evil. But in most cases they were just the messenger delivering news that others either didn???t recognize or wanted to ignore. Of course if CEO's and company owners lined their pockets before the ship sank that is on them. And those who lost their job don???t want to hear any of this kind of reasoning, they just know they lost their job and that sucks. I understand that in some cases Bain bought or bought into the companies and then had to make cuts to make them profitable. As I stated at the outset, this is just my personal experience and how I saw the company operate. If they went to other companies and did outrageously evil stuff that is diametrically different than my experience with them I have no knowledge of this.
The government sorely needs the kind of review and actions that Bain recommended at my place???..but I don???t see it happening.
The government is not a business but it can not spend more than it takes in???that???s not a Dem or Rep problem???that???s reality..
Yes, it can, and in fact, it is a necessary function of government to run deficits. Not eternally, of course, but there are times that things need to be done that may not be able to if we don't borrow the money to make them happen. Infrastructure, anyone? WWII? Natural disaster relief? Let's not forget that the vast majority of the money we owe is to ourselves.
The reality is, during the Clinton years, the GOP and the Dems struck a deal that not only balanced the budget, but also had us on the fast track to paying down the debt. The GOP blew that up in 2001, and began profligate spending. Romney proposes the same policies. More tax cuts, more defense spending, no balanced budget for 20+ years, which means no debt reduction for even longer than that.
Why anyone would think that's a good idea is beyond me.
This is just my experience, I'm not endorsing or condemning any of it.
I have a very good friend who owns 3 large apt buildings in Silver Springs Takoma Park area.
He operates them for long term profit and gain. Many people buy apt buildings, collect rents for 5-10 years, do no maintenance then sell them for a profit. Since my friend is keeping his buildings for the long term he is always doing maintenance and trying to improve the buildings to keep tenants.
He also is always in debt. It is part of his business model. Every 10 years, or so, he remortgages the buildings to get a chunk of change to do major updates. If interest rates go low, like now, he will remortgage even more often. Being in debt is the way he makes money.
I don't run my business that way. I hate being in debt. Most retailers do operate on credit, running a deficit all year hoping to turn a profit at xmas. Sometimes I need to borrow for large expenses and I am glad I can but I like to pay it off in a hurry. Not a good strategy many business people have told. Debt is good they say.
The government (Federal, state, county, city) should always be borrowing money for long term infrastructure projects. Since the first early days of our nation and the building of the first canals, this is the way the US government has always worked. The idea that the government is now broke and can no longer afford to do the things it is supposed to do is a new concept and a bad one.
In bad times the government needs to runs deficits to keep things running and to stimulate the economy. The reason the economic downturn has been so long is because the government has failed to do this.
The government is not a business but it can not perprtually spend more than it takes in???that???s not a Dem or Rep problem???that???s reality..
Yes, it can, and in fact, it is a necessary function of government to run deficits. Not eternally, of course, but there are times that things need to be done that may not be able to if we don't borrow the money to make them happen. Infrastructure, anyone? WWII? Natural disaster relief? Let's not forget that the vast majority of the money we owe is to ourselves.
This is true, but there is a breaking point and we are there or close to it.
I'm not going to get into a pissing match about who's out of control spending, bailing and stimulating put us in this mess but if we don't get out soon it's curtains for life as we know it. No one that I have seen wants to bite the bullet and do what's needed to start digging out of the hole although there is no shortage on promises, lip service and finger pointing.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
This is true, but there is a breaking point and we are there or close to it.
I'm not going to get into a pissing match about who's out of control spending, bailing and stimulating put us in this mess but if we don't get out soon it's curtains for life as we know it. No one that I have seen wants to bite the bullet and do what's needed to start digging out of the hole although there is no shortage on promises, lip service and finger pointing.
I can get with this. I'm hopeful that if reelected, Obama will endorse most of the proposals in Simpson-Bowles. While likely it's not a magic bullet to solving our collective problems, most experts agree that it's a good framework. Wish he would have endorsed this term, but can't go back. Maybe if the GOP had endorsed S-B, I might take them more seriously.
This is true, but there is a breaking point and we are there or close to it.
I'm not going to get into a pissing match about who's out of control spending, bailing and stimulating put us in this mess but if we don't get out soon it's curtains for life as we know it. No one that I have seen wants to bite the bullet and do what's needed to start digging out of the hole although there is no shortage on promises, lip service and finger pointing.
I can get with this. I'm hopeful that if reelected, Obama will endorse most of the proposals in Simpson-Bowles. While likely it's not a magic bullet to solving our collective problems, most experts agree that it's a good framework. Wish he would have endorsed this term, but can't go back. Maybe if the GOP had endorsed S-B, I might take them more seriously.
Here's what I don't understand.
Obama didn't endorse S-B....the GOP didn't endorse S-B.....but it's only the GOP you don't take seriously while hanging hope that Obama will do in years 5-8 what he didn't do in 1-4....that seems a bit odd to me.
This is true, but there is a breaking point and we are there or close to it.
I'm not going to get into a pissing match about who's out of control spending, bailing and stimulating put us in this mess but if we don't get out soon it's curtains for life as we know it. No one that I have seen wants to bite the bullet and do what's needed to start digging out of the hole although there is no shortage on promises, lip service and finger pointing.
I can get with this. I'm hopeful that if reelected, Obama will endorse most of the proposals in Simpson-Bowles. While likely it's not a magic bullet to solving our collective problems, most experts agree that it's a good framework. Wish he would have endorsed this term, but can't go back. Maybe if the GOP had endorsed S-B, I might take them more seriously.
Here's what I don't understand.
Obama didn't endorse S-B....the GOP didn't endorse S-B.....but it's only the GOP you don't take seriously while hanging hope that Obama will do in years 5-8 what he didn't do in 1-4....that seems a bit odd to me.
Let me see if I can explain...While Obama did not endorse S-B outright, he did endorse many of the proposals, including raising revenue (taxes), investing in infrastructure and education, defense cuts, long term spending cuts, and reorganization of so-called entitlements (Medicare and SS). The GOP advocates for slashing of entitlements, lower taxes, and short term spending cuts that will crush the economy.
And it's no secret that President's can get done (or at least propose) things in their second term that they can't in their first. No reelection related.
Comments
It's only wasted if I don't use it.
The waste of the vote argument suggest that only voting for the person who wins is a good use of the vote.
If you voted against Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan... you wasted your vote.
I'm convinced and also would like to note from my perspective the main difference between the U.S. and Russia, GB, France, etc is that we usually pick a friendlier face to push our sh*t in on the reg
That's not my argument. It's a waste because the election is too important to use a precious vote on a third party candidate. It's a vote for Romney. Why not just vote for him?
This is a very short-sighted perspective.
Both parties are essentially criminal organizations that prey on the American people and ultimately serve the same dark masters. The false Dem/Rep dichotomy is some bogus good cop/bad cop shit that belongs on an episode of Cagney and Lacey. If a third party/independent presence does not establish itself in government, this country is basically doomed.
Obviously no such candidate has a chance now, but you've got to open the door and set a precedent.
The parasite has grown too hungry, and demands too much.
You didn't understand my post at all.
All of the issues you mentioned are used as shiny red herrings to distract you from the fact that you are being robbed blind.
And why not spend millions? - it isn't their money, it's money they conned people like you into donating by dangling the pretty little fish in front of them.
*edit
You know what? Fuck you. Telling me my concerns are nothing but "pretty little fish". Fuck You.
I think HL only meant "people who believe there is a major difference between the two parties"...those are the folks who give money.
Let's face it....we never had a President, Dem or Rep, that even came out in support of gay marriage until a few weeks ago....and none of them have ever tried to make it legal.
Of all the things that need to be fixed in this country, Gay Marriage should be pretty low on the list of priorities.
But these clowns, on both sides, will wave these emotional issues in front of the public and for the most part they are nothing but distractions.
The phrase "people like you" in a face to face discussion would have me on the verge of throwing a punch. t's an insult only used by the arrogant.
Yep...pretty much my sentiments exactly.
Plus, not to sound like an MSNBC segment but, I don't see Romney's regurgitation of the trickle down approach resonating with the people's perception of the current economy.
I understand where you're coming from but with the economic catastrophe on our doorstep it's like focusing on a flat tire when the vehicle has no engine. They both need to be fixed but it's clear which needs to be fixed first.
Fine. But I don't feel that my voting for Obama instead of Kaptain Kolob and trickle down part IV is some sort of participation in a conspiracy. I feel that keeping the wannabe scalias off of the supreme court is just as important for the future of the US. The economy is moving forward slowly and I would rather stay on the path of it creeping instead of cut and slash that would only help the very wealthy. I do not buy this "we need a businessman" bullshit. The constitution is not a business plan, the role of government is not to turn a profit for a few shareholders, the role of government is to look out for the best interests if it's citizens. I do not find a rich kid who managed to get richer on the backs of the less fortunate to be impressive nor do I find it to be a qualification to guide a country to prosperity.
People like you are the reason that people like me need to stay politically active and informed, and not let the inmates take control of the asylum.
You're right, of course, and for that I apologize.
Apology accepted
I have some first hand experience with Bain and will share my anecdotal story here only because it may add a perspective that is not usually related by the Media. This is by no means an attempt to defend, support or make excuses for Mr. Romney or his company. It???s simply my experience and perspective???.take it or leave it.
The company I work for has been in business for 93 years and is solely owned by the family who started it in 1919. Over that time the company has had good times and has struggled at times. Being a family owned business it tends to treat their employees (16,000) like family. The company had its most successful period in the 70???s and 80???s??????the 90???s and 00???s have been a lot tougher. We are a manufacturer with a dedicated sales force and we do business in every country on earth except for three. In my 32 years of employment we have never had layoffs but we are below average on the pay scale typically found in this industry. Security and Benefits > Big Salary. (Hook-Up knows a little about us as he did have a job interview a couple of years back).
In the late 90???s the company hired Bain to come in and see how they could improve our operations. They had a ???team leader??? that headed up the project and his team was made up of young Ivy League and other highly regarded college grads. Their task was to look at us strictly from a business viewpoint which is hard to do sometimes when you have existing personal relationships with the employees. To say they were ???cold and calculating??? would be accurate. They were also very expensive. They were given full access to our entire company and for just over a year they reviewed all the aspects of the company including manufacturing processes, inventory control, logistics, computer programs, internal processes and employee efficiency. This was something that had gone unchecked for many years and which wasn???t necessary during the good times(we were successful despite any shortcomings) but was starting to be a problem during the lean(er) times.
At the end of their study they made recommendations to the owners on how to improve many of these areas. This included trimming down the product line to remove those items that weren???t pulling their weight, reduce inventory by consolidating similar products, and subsequently reducing staff as the first two steps allowed the company to be run with a more streamlined number of associates. They also suggested changing some processes that would be just as effective with less people. And last but not least they pointed out that our employees performance was not measured in a way to determine if they were performing their job function well or not. In my view all of these things were positive and needed to get, and keep, the company on the right track.
The owners chose to implement some of the ideas but not others. They hired a few of the young people who worked for Bain to stay and help make sure these programs were implemented correctly. They decided not to reduce staff even if these new ideas would afford them to. The truth is the company was not in dire straits when Bain came in and needed just a few ???tweaks??? to help keep it upright and profitable. The Bain folks explained to me on more than one occasion that this was not typical of what they did. Usually they were called in when a company was going under water for the third time and they had to make much more drastic changes to try to rescue the company. And many times it didn???t work, they were too far gone and even after cutting large numbers of employees and taking other harsh steps the companies would go under. Of course they would have gone under anyway and they looked at their successes as miracle and their failures as inevitable.
Now some 10+ years later, and with the economy still stale, we are having to make some of the changes they originally suggested that we chose to ignore. We???re hoping it???s not too late and some feel it was a mistake to wait this long. The reality is that a company has to make money. It can???t spend more than it takes in which is nothing more than common sense. If I thought Mitt Romney was going to take this kind of approach with the government I would be supporting him 100%. But I don???t think he will, or that he could even accomplish this if he wanted to. There are too many corrupt and broken things in the tax vs. spend ratio that it???s not going to be fixed by being proactive but is doomed to being rebuilt after it crashes and burns. No one, rich or poor, want to face the reality that is upon us and throwing more money at these problems is not the answer. The government is not a business but it can not spend more than it takes in???that???s not a Dem or Rep problem???that???s reality.
When Bain was hired to do their thing in the business world people lost their jobs, companies went out of business and Bain got paid very well regardless of the ultimate outcome. I can see how that would come off as mercenary and possibly evil. But in most cases they were just the messenger delivering news that others either didn???t recognize or wanted to ignore. Of course if CEO's and company owners lined their pockets before the ship sank that is on them. And those who lost their job don???t want to hear any of this kind of reasoning, they just know they lost their job and that sucks. I understand that in some cases Bain bought or bought into the companies and then had to make cuts to make them profitable. As I stated at the outset, this is just my personal experience and how I saw the company operate. If they went to other companies and did outrageously evil stuff that is diametrically different than my experience with them I have no knowledge of this.
The government sorely needs the kind of review and actions that Bain recommended at my place???..but I don???t see it happening.
Good vs. Evil?
But yeah......that's probably correct.
Yes, it can, and in fact, it is a necessary function of government to run deficits. Not eternally, of course, but there are times that things need to be done that may not be able to if we don't borrow the money to make them happen. Infrastructure, anyone? WWII? Natural disaster relief? Let's not forget that the vast majority of the money we owe is to ourselves.
The reality is, during the Clinton years, the GOP and the Dems struck a deal that not only balanced the budget, but also had us on the fast track to paying down the debt. The GOP blew that up in 2001, and began profligate spending. Romney proposes the same policies. More tax cuts, more defense spending, no balanced budget for 20+ years, which means no debt reduction for even longer than that.
Why anyone would think that's a good idea is beyond me.
I have a very good friend who owns 3 large apt buildings in Silver Springs Takoma Park area.
He operates them for long term profit and gain. Many people buy apt buildings, collect rents for 5-10 years, do no maintenance then sell them for a profit. Since my friend is keeping his buildings for the long term he is always doing maintenance and trying to improve the buildings to keep tenants.
He also is always in debt. It is part of his business model. Every 10 years, or so, he remortgages the buildings to get a chunk of change to do major updates. If interest rates go low, like now, he will remortgage even more often. Being in debt is the way he makes money.
I don't run my business that way. I hate being in debt. Most retailers do operate on credit, running a deficit all year hoping to turn a profit at xmas. Sometimes I need to borrow for large expenses and I am glad I can but I like to pay it off in a hurry. Not a good strategy many business people have told. Debt is good they say.
The government (Federal, state, county, city) should always be borrowing money for long term infrastructure projects. Since the first early days of our nation and the building of the first canals, this is the way the US government has always worked. The idea that the government is now broke and can no longer afford to do the things it is supposed to do is a new concept and a bad one.
In bad times the government needs to runs deficits to keep things running and to stimulate the economy. The reason the economic downturn has been so long is because the government has failed to do this.
This is true, but there is a breaking point and we are there or close to it.
I'm not going to get into a pissing match about who's out of control spending, bailing and stimulating put us in this mess but if we don't get out soon it's curtains for life as we know it. No one that I have seen wants to bite the bullet and do what's needed to start digging out of the hole although there is no shortage on promises, lip service and finger pointing.
I can get with this. I'm hopeful that if reelected, Obama will endorse most of the proposals in Simpson-Bowles. While likely it's not a magic bullet to solving our collective problems, most experts agree that it's a good framework. Wish he would have endorsed this term, but can't go back. Maybe if the GOP had endorsed S-B, I might take them more seriously.
Here's what I don't understand.
Obama didn't endorse S-B....the GOP didn't endorse S-B.....but it's only the GOP you don't take seriously while hanging hope that Obama will do in years 5-8 what he didn't do in 1-4....that seems a bit odd to me.
Let me see if I can explain...While Obama did not endorse S-B outright, he did endorse many of the proposals, including raising revenue (taxes), investing in infrastructure and education, defense cuts, long term spending cuts, and reorganization of so-called entitlements (Medicare and SS). The GOP advocates for slashing of entitlements, lower taxes, and short term spending cuts that will crush the economy.
And it's no secret that President's can get done (or at least propose) things in their second term that they can't in their first. No reelection related.
nope. not a snowball's chance in hell.