The party of no

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

What does Reid propose to stop the stupid requiring of the country to go through it all over again. The country has gone through it 78 times since 1960 and the debt has continued to rise, even under the Clinton "surplus" years. So Reid says no to the the cut, cap, and balance proposal, but is there some other way to keep the country from going through it all over again? If we just tax the rich a little more and do the obligatory promise to cut spending in 10 years (which, of course will not happen and there is no way to force a future congress from spending--oh wait, a balanced budget amendment), that'll do it? Isn't it stupid to think that this or a future congress will have learned the lesson that overspending can lead to collapse if we keep raising the amount that lets them overspend?

Hmmmm...

Compromise is useful when the range (or spectrum) of possibilities is wide.

Tax pledges, debt caps etc... all seem to take options off the table. Certainly the Dems have their entitlements to protect, but I'd note that even my Republican voting father believes his Medicare is his and not a government handout.

There is little room for compromise when you are about to bleed to death. You must stop the bleeding. You can't stop a little bleeding and promise to stop the rest later. The continued flow will overcome the bit you "stopped" and further negotiation can only go so far. The process must end and the bleeding must be stopped, or the body will die. We've been turning the Federal tourniquet on and off now too long. The loss is at a critical point. Time to stop it.

By what...a default? It's not possible to cut spending as fast as the Tea Party seems to want. The result of a default will likely mean higher interest rates and another recession resulting in...lower tax revenues and more deficit.

That logic is counter productive.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Hmmmm...

hmmmmmmm......

Tax pledges, debt caps etc... all seem to take options off the table.

Where is it written that there should be options that you can't pay for on the table?

Certainly the Dems have their entitlements to protect, but I'd note that even my Republican voting father believes his Medicare is his and not a government handout.

How do you protect an entitlement by making it so expensive that you can't afford it? And what constitution says you are entitled? And how do you own such an entitlement? Can your father do what he wants with the Medicare he thinks he owns? Can he sell it or trade it for another model? Does he own it, or does it own him?

By what...a default? It's not possible to cut spending as fast as the Tea Party seems to want. The result of a default will likely mean higher interest rates and another recession resulting in...lower tax revenues and more deficit.

That logic is counter productive.

-spence

A default does not have to happen if some Republican rather than some Democrat, or some Tea Party "plan" is passed. The Government takes in enough money now to carry on at a slower pace with cuts being made along the way. Not promised cuts in some indefinite future, but small, sure ones that grow in time as lower tax revenues require--if revenues do indeed decline. Smaller government should require lower revenues. Why do we constantly worry about needing larger and larger government revenues unless we want larger and larger government? And if the larger revenues are siphoned, sucked, from the private sector, does not that sector shrink? Why should we favor larger government and smaller citizens?
Why are we so much more concerned with government deficits than private deficits?