Liberals and Romney's taxes

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Agree about the cycle, but taxing and Govt. spending will never speed
the cycle up.

No doubt that spending reductions would help with confidence as well as the massive amount of debt service.

Spending reductions have a flip side though as well. Ryan's plans before looked to eliminate 4+ million Government jobs. While that might make the Fed smaller, it also increases the unemployed and weakens the consumer base and shifts burden to the States.

Increasing revenues via taxation doesn't magically fix the problem, but combined with modest cuts can have a meaningful impact that's short-term.

Right now I don't think it's reasonable nor necessary to have a perfect end game solution. We simply need to be moving the ball in the right direction.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No doubt that spending reductions would help with confidence as well as the massive amount of debt service.

Spending reductions have a flip side though as well. Ryan's plans before looked to eliminate 4+ million Government jobs. While that might make the Fed smaller, it also increases the unemployed and weakens the consumer base and shifts burden to the States.

Increasing revenues via taxation doesn't magically fix the problem, but combined with modest cuts can have a meaningful impact that's short-term.

Right now I don't think it's reasonable nor necessary to have a perfect end game solution. We simply need to be moving the ball in the right direction.

-spence

'No doubt that spending reductions would help with confidence..."

Obama not only doubts that, he denies it.

"While that might make the Fed smaller, it also increases the unemployed "

Spence, if government (feds and local) would loosen the noose around our necks, confidence would grow (as you said), so businesses would take some of that money and grow, and hire many displaced federal employees. The fedweral government was not designed to be a jobs program.

"We simply need to be moving the ball in the right direction."

Well, Obama's idea of "the right direction" seems to be to double-down on failed, expensive ideas. He has added to the debt, failed to curtail unemployment, and done exactly nothing to address entitlement programs (except to demonize those who propose ideas). Spence, how is that "moving the ball in the right direction"?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Well, Obama's idea of "the right direction" seems to be to double-down on failed, expensive ideas. He has added to the debt, failed to curtail unemployment, and done exactly nothing to address entitlement programs (except to demonize those who propose ideas). Spence, how is that "moving the ball in the right direction"?

if you understand the progressives you realize that for them, this is moving the ball in the right direction everything you mentioned results in greater dependence on government....it's a wife-beater mentality really don't worry...it hurts them more than it hurts you...honestly

I think they call it the "new normal"

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

if you understand the progressives you realize that for them, this is moving the ball in the right direction everything you mentioned results in greater dependence on government....it's a wife-beater mentality really don't worry...it hurts them more than it hurts you...honestly

Yes, it's all part of the final solution.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, it's all part of the final solution.

-spence

you have to admit...it's a hell of a lot easier to find takers for your newly create healthcare bureaucracy/benefits if they don't have jobs and if businesses are struggling with costs....along with all of your other expanding bureaucracies

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

....along with all of your other expanding bureaucracies

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/05/bu...arts.html?_r=1

Government Getting Smaller in the U.S.
By FLOYD NORRIS
Published: May 4, 2012

FOR the first time in 40 years, the government sector of the American economy has shrunk during the first three years of a presidential administration.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

if you understand the progressives you realize that for them, this is moving the ball in the right direction everything you mentioned results in greater dependence on government....it's a wife-beater mentality really don't worry...it hurts them more than it hurts you...honestly

I think they call it the "new normal"

An article on growing dependence on government:Harsanyi: Dependency nation

[scottw]

the federal bureaucracy, it's reach, regulations, dependants and employees has grown and will continue to...state and local losses account for the "reduction' you point to....

"By many measures, the federal government has indeed grown during Obama's tenure. Spending as a share of the economy has gone up. The number of federal employees has risen. More Americans are relying on federal assistance.

Employees: The number of federal employees grew by 123,000, or 6.2%, under President Obama, according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget.

The federal government has been one of the few areas that's grown during the economic downturn. The private sector remains down 1.1 million jobs from the start of 2009, while state and local governments have shed 635,000 positions."

Did Obama really make government bigger? - Jan. 25, 2012


"But while state and local jobs evaporated, Labor Department statistics show that the federal government , not counting the postal service, has grown by 143,000 employees during Obama’s tenure.

Looking solely at the increase in non-postal-service federal employees during Obama’s tenure, the president has overseen a 5.1 percent increase in size of the federal workforce."

Government Job Loss: President Obama’s Catch 22 - ABC News



and I don't know how much credit you want or should claim for your hero when it comes to reductions in state and local

Plan to cut 15 percent of state workforce sails through committee

Posted by: Baird Helgeson
January 19, 2011 -

Reigniting tensions between Republicans legislators and public employees, a House committee on Wednesday approved a proposal to reduce the state’s workforce by 15 percent.

“This proposal is about more than balancing the budget. It is about balancing government,” said the bill’s author, state Rep. Keith Downey, R-Edina. “For too long, state government has relied on one-time measures and looked the other way to foreboding fiscal crisis. Our state can no longer afford the status quo, and our citizens deserve better.”

Democrats blasted the measure as a ham-handed effort to cut state workers without ushering in any reform to make government work better. They called it “economic suicide” in a struggling economy to eliminate 5,000 workers.


http://www.startribune.com/politics/114219459.html

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

An article on growing dependence on government:Harsanyi: Dependency nation

life of Juia was a great flick

“The Life of Julia,” an ode to an imaginary woman who lived her entire life benefiting from government dependency and other people’s money rather than individual initiative and hard work.

Americans, the administration’s case goes, should be able to enjoy housing aid, student loan forgiveness, food stamps, free birth control, government retirement plans, universal internet service, medical insurance, and that’s just for starters.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Spending reductions have a flip side though as well. Ryan's plans before looked to eliminate 4+ million Government jobs.

-spence

Not to worry, they can all get jobs in the new booming "Green Economy."