Liberal free for all coming to an end

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GRH

Are you smoking crack Tracy?

No, but I did have some blue bell ice cream last night.

Originally Posted by GRH

Obama has shown a HIGH propensity for compromise which included $3 trillion in spending cuts-- including cuts to Social Security and Medicare (sacred cows for Democrats). It's the damn Republicans that refuse to budge on revenues, or as I like to call it, tax spending.

The entire time BO has been president I have been griping about his overspending and saying that it was going to put us deep in debt, risk our credit rating and that the programs he wanted weren't going to help anything. 3 years later that is exactly where we are. It's time to recognize that the trillions BO added to the debt were for nothing other than to pay off his supporters. The liberal free for all is at an end.

He has added over $4 trillion in debt in his term. His $3 trillion in cuts that he wants is over 10 years. That's $300 billion/year. That's pocket change. So basically he wants us to live with this debt he added, oh and by the way let's get more tax too for his mismanagement of our economy. That's really going to help in a big-ass recession.

Originally Posted by GRH

And part of the reason that the Boehner proposal for a temporary extension (that would last six months) is completely unacceptable is because it creates economic uncertainty for the entire economy.

The debt situation BO has put us in creates uncertainty for the economy. As far back as 1940 Congress had to pass 37 short-term debt extensions. They have all provided funding for less than six months. He is focused on his campaign, pure and simple. Like what Rahm Emanuel says "You never want a serious crisis go to waste".

Originally Posted by GRH

Debt is not an evil thing.

That's a blanket statement. Certainly you must realize that at some point the interest payments become too big of a burden on our economy.

Originally Posted by GRH

And the absurdity of "capping" spending at a percentage of GDP completely ignores demographic trends. We have a boom of retirees flooding the system; this marks a major demographic shift from our past history and in the coming decades will necessitate a higher amount of spending as a percentage of GDP to pay the benefits to these retirees. This demographic shift has spending implications. Those that support capping spending ignore the demographics-- what they are essentially saying is that we are going to renege on the promises we've made to seniors.

Wouldn't it be nice if the $157 billion we're paying for interest on our debt could go to the boom of retirees flooding the system instead? We have to live within our means. If there's a boom of retirees flooding the system, then we'll have to cut something else. You want to add more money to the budget? Create more tax payers.