Do we really need a commission to tell us to stop spending? My god, when you are not bringing in enough revenue - CUT BACK SPENDING. Can Obama make a decision or not, where is the leadership? If he wants to raise taxes (I disagree, but that's not the point) then do it - you and your party have the power. Don't have 60 votes (excuses excuses) do it by reconciliation. Strap on a pair of balls. Typical indecisive Liberal. Use Executive powers, just do it. You can no longer just vote "present". It is obvious he is in way over his head, incapable of making a decision and seeking cover by appointing a commission. Maybe we should quit hiring more and more union government employees at incredible pay rates. And then, maybe he should take a page from Chris Christie and make hard decisions. People gravitate towards decision makers.
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/02/chris_christies_speech_on_budg.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Oh and by the way Baxter in case you are out there - you make comparisons between where Reagan and Obama were at the same time in their prospective Presidencies. I doubt Obama will ever have a Reagan moment a) "Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall" b)Reykjavik just a few. No moxie.
I notice how Mark Chaney is one of the good people who exclaim "cut spending" without being specific. All of my Republican friends need to "strap on a pair of balls" and tell us just where they would cut spending and how long it would take to balance the budget. If you all can't find the stones, just give me your skirt size and I'll send you appropriate attire. K?
Mark -
I don't expect Obama to cut and run ala Beirut either. And he won't triple the national debt in his first term, as Reagan did. You are right - there are significant differences.
Already addressed, you just didn't like or agree with the answer. Besides, you miss the point, how about some leadership. When are we going to see something other than a "breakout session". What a joke!
Great when is he gonna take control? Let's see it happen, maybe Michelle can make a decision! He needs to go back to the classroom, buy the Volvo/Jag/Land Rover, get a sport jacket with elbow patches, postulate all day and switch to a pipe. Those who can do, those who can't teach.
Mark - You & yours have been non-responsive. "Grow our way out of it" along with George Will cut n' pastes do not answer the basic budget questions.
Alan Simpson has it right. Long term, we need to cut spending and entitlements, period. We also need significantly more tax revenues.
I understand the budget and I honestly do not believe that you & yours do. If you did, you would not hold your untenable position.
What did Reagan do to balance the budget? Oh...
How about Bush. What did he do? Actions speak louder than words and the GOP actions to date have led to $10T in debt and growing. And you brilliant bunch - you still oppose any form of new taxes. What will it take for you to learn?
Reminder: If Bush had simply maintained Clinton's 20% of GDP revenues, he would have had SURPLUSES instead of doubling the national debt. He cut taxes big time and killed the revenue side of the budget. Get a clue, Lou...
Good Eric,
We need a forceful push at the top though - Obama has got to show some leadership. It is long past time to push this off on a commission. I disagree with most of his policies, but I do respect leadership.
You've made an excellent point, Mark.
Baxter, actually I did address this before and you thanked me for the response - "Mark - Not a bad sentiment, but that wouldn't do it...
THANK YOU for answering the challenge. You are showing some courage that your co-bloggers apparently lack. You have a great weekend too!
So even though you disagree with me it does not make you right, which seems to be a common theme among Liberals. Aren't you the tolerant group wanting to hear all ideas? You think that everthing that flows from your mouth is unassailable, like you are a professor grading papers.
You want to talk about Bush and Reagan - have your guy be a leader. Show us - come on! You are right - Actions speak louder than words - let's see some action, where is it. You guys have the power - do it.
And this is the last time I address Clinton. He presided over one of the greatest technological growth periods in history. Great companies such as Microsoft, Cisco, Intel and so on dumped huge amounts of taxes into the Treasury and when the bubble burst (through no fault of Clinton's) revenue went down. Do you remember that period - must not. Give credit where credit is due - to the companies who provided the revenue to the Treasury. Clinton got a free ride - he was not the engineer.
Now back to Obama - when is he gonna take control?
Mark -
First, I apologize. You did respond and though spare, it was the most substantive response that we have received from your side on the topic. I had completely spaced your reply. Again, I'm sorry.
I think we can agree that your 10% not-quite-across-the-board spending cuts are inadequate to the task at hand. We would need to reduce total spending by 36%, interest costs can't be cut, and the economy could not withstand such a reduction in GDP.
So - you have not come up with any real proposal in specifics or principle to balance the budget. I also think, as a potential Bayh voter, that you would agree that more taxes are necessary of only you could back off the partisanship for a moment. You are businessman. You know how to make ends meet and you know it can't all be done on one side of our federal P&L.
I think it is easier for GOP individuals to engage in willful ignorance. You all are bright guys - sincerely - however, you casually agree with each other "no new taxes, just cut spending". No one seems to have the courage or wisdom to say, hey - that just won't cut it. We are in too deep. It is easier just to go along rather than pulling out the budget and taking a long look.
Regarding the '90's - I could not disagree with you more. Reagan had the '80's - the best demographics possible for economic growth. The Boomers were just beginning their family formation years and then heading into peak earnings. If you are looking to give credit to anyone but the president, you can make cynical arguments for any decade in the last century.
A good economy does not explain 20%/GDP in federal revenues. Reagan and Bush had solid economic growth and came in well short of that. It is the TAX STRUCTURE that determines what portion of the economy finds its way into federal coffers. Clinton inherited a structural deficit. He courageously raised taxes and ended that structural deficit. Bush inherited a surplus, massively cut taxes and put us back into a structural deficit. How hard is that to understand?
You can argue about the source of growth during the Clinton years. There were many factors (as with any presidency), however, the decreasing deficit enabled Greenspan to keep rates low, just as he schooled Clinton in January of 1993. That is the heart of "Rubinomics" and in keeping with textbook Keynesian economics.
Leadership to balance the budget? Far easier said than done, particularly when facing the Great Recession. What happened after the 1993 budget bill that ultimately balanced the budget? Do the Democrats forget 1994? Your repeated protestations are merely taunts. Who is showing courage these days in Washington? Not the Democrats, scared sh**less by Massachusetts. Not the GOP, now beholden and intimidated by the Tea Party Nation. Obama is exerting leadership, but there is no point in leading the charge on a particular issue if surely no one will follow. A leader must pick his battles.
I wish they would summon the courage to ditch the Filibuster, pass Health Care (which I still expect, BTW), pass banking reform and adopt the commission recommendations (a very successful bipartisan approach to eliminating unnecessary but popular military bases) to get our fiscal house in order. Ironically, I think it would also be the best approach politically. But that apparently can't be sold to one trembling representative at a time.
Finally - our lame duck Congress may get a lot of things done this November and December. It is easier to muster courage when elections are two years away - or if you won't be running in the next cycle.
1)No problem.
2) Just Disagree - No 10% would be great, it is a start. 10% is better than 0. Interest costs can be cut when you reduce principal - it is a simple math assumption.
3) Yes I have - you just disagree. yes more taxes would be fine at the lower level, so that everybody pays and the revenue is more stable. Yes that's correct as far as the P&L statement goes, but I would not be hiring non-producers (government union employees) at record rates when I cannot make ends meet. They are takers not creators. That's where I would begin cutting big time.
4) Wrong - I just said more taxes on the lower levels.
5) Just disagree - Clinton was not "Oz" pulling the right levels, it was the private sector and great business models.
6) Just disagree - Clinton inherited the Tech Boom - good for him. After the Tech Boom ended in 99-2000 Bush inherited crashing markets. Not his fault, not Clinton's either. Just a bubble they burst - business cycle.
7)Disagree - not a taunt where are the results.
8)Disagree - just an excuse. Not a taunt - where are the results. I don't know what kind of world you live in - but results are the only thing that matter in mine. I agree with a 60/40 margin they have done nothing, zip nada - profiles in courage. Uh "A simple definition of leadership is that leadership is the art of motivating a group of people to act towards achieving a common goal.
Put even more simply, the leader is the inspiration and director of the action. He or she is the person in the group that possesses the combination of personality and skills that makes others want to follow his or her direction." Not seeing it pal.
9)Do it - be ready for it on the other side though!
From now on - just results!
Mark -
Your proposal doesn't balance the budget - it is merely a start. That wasn't the challenge. Just how do you propose balancing the budget and how long will it take?
You can't begin to pay down principal until you have balanced the budget. Once you have done that, you can pay down debt, reduce interest costs, and create a virtuous cycle. It is a shame that wasn't on the GOP's mind in 2001 and 2003 when... well, you know the story.
You could eliminate the salaries of each and every federal bureaucrat and you would still have a deficit. That is the scope of the problem. To complain about government "union" employees in this context is argumentative and completely misses the point. We had lazy government bureaucrats throughout the '90s too. The number has not gone up much, if at all.
I appreciate your Republican approach of maintaining tax rates on the high end and raising them on the lower end. That is rather candid. To the extent that it raises revenues, it stifles demand. The po' folks spend every dime - it would offset stimulus and be exactly the wrong thing to do in this economic environment.
The economic success of the '90's had many sources including Clinton, the private sector, great business models, globalization, the peace dividend, etc, etc. None are mutually exclusive. We had a fiscally responsible government for the first time in a generation and it was led by WJC. Remember - not one Republican vote on the 1993 Budget Bill.
Bush was greeted by a downturn in the business cycle. We agree on that. It was not particularly consequential. Short lived business cycle recessions do not double the national debt in 8 years. Incredibly poor fiscal policies do. We have the evidence - see "Bush Administration 2001 - 2009".
I too am results oriented. I am delighted to see the success of Stimpack. The economy is growing again, job losses have been cut nearly to zero and the budget deficit is headed modestly downwards. That is hardly zip, nada. You will be hearing more about this in the next 8 months.
I like the kitchen allegory. One Dem House member recently told his colleagues that he wanted to kill his contractor while he was updating his kitchen. It took far too long and was an ugly process. Now that it is done, he has a remodeled kitchen, he is happy as can be and has invited his contractor over socially. With respect to Health Care Reform, the Democrats need to finish the kitchen. There will not be blow back. There will be rewards.
OK let's get started.
1)Number 1 you don't set the rules - you are not the one in charge. Of course it's a start, that is how you correct a bad situation by making incremental changes. How do you eat an elephant - one bite at a time. I have already addressed the across the board cuts I would make and raise taxes at the lower level. How long does not matter - the point is to get started. I like Chris Christie's approach.
By increasing the tax rate at the lower levels you would have a much broader tax base.
2)Hiring new government employees is an insult at a time like this, we don't have the money to pay for what we have right now - why are taking on more. We should be removing all the duplication and cutting back 10%.
3)You are wrong, it's been proven time and time again just taxing the rich doesn't work - just ask California, New York and New Jersey. They just move on to a better tax climate.
4) I cannot really see discussing this any longer. You have your view and I have mine - we just reiterate our views over and over. You give credit to Clinton and I give it to the private sector. It's a waste of our time. In the future I will just label it as "previously discussed".
5)Actually financially the Bush years were great for most of America - 5% unemployment and people were making lots of money. I made more $$$ than ever. It was just the last 15 months of his presidency that were tough. But once again the housing bubble was not started by Bush. Once again government involvement hatched it.
6)Already discussed - you are wrong.
7)Once again - do it. I hope you do pass it, via Reconciliation - that's exactly what I am hoping for. That will be great! Go ahead put it in the hands of a group of bureaucrats - what a track record!
1)Number 1 you don't set the rules - you are not the one in charge. Of course it's a start, that is how you correct a bad situation by making incremental changes. How do you eat an elephant - one bite at a time. I have already addressed the across the board cuts I would make and raise taxes at the lower level. How long does not matter - the point is to get started. I like Chris Christie's approach. MY POINT IS THAT YOU CANNOT BALANCE THE BUDGET - I HAVE GIVEN YOU & JIM & EVERYONE ELSE A CHANCE TO EXPLAIN HOW, BUT YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT. THATS ALL.
By increasing the tax rate at the lower levels you would have a much broader tax base.
2)Hiring new government employees is an insult at a time like this, we don't have the money to pay for what we have right now - why are taking on more. We should be removing all the duplication and cutting back 10%. YOU DO NOT CONCENTRATE ON SPENDING CUTS DURING A RECESSION UNLESS YOUR NAME IS HOOVER (R). ITS VERY BASIC.
3)You are wrong, it's been proven time and time again just taxing the rich doesn't work - just ask California, New York and New Jersey. They just move on to a better tax climate. WHERE WILL THE RICH GO? WE HAVE THE LOWEST TAXES IN THE WESTERN INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD. IF CANADA HAD A ZERO TAX RATE LIKE NEVADA, YOU MIGHT HAVE A POINT, EXCEPT THEIR TAXES ARE HIGHER THAN OURS.
4) I cannot really see discussing this any longer. You have your view and I have mine - we just reiterate our views over and over. You give credit to Clinton and I give it to the private sector. It's a waste of our time. In the future I will just label it as "previously discussed". WHATEVER YOU DO, MARK, DON'T EVER GIVE CREDIT TO A DEMOCRAT. THAT IS GOOD FAITH AND FAIR PLAY, REPUBLICAN STYLE.
5)Actually financially the Bush years were great for most of America - 5% unemployment and people were making lots of money. I made more $$$ than ever. It was just the last 15 months of his presidency that were tough. But once again the housing bubble was not started by Bush. Once again government involvement hatched it. IT'S AMAZING WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH MASSIVE DEFICITS DURING TIMES OF GROWTH, YEAR AFTER YEAR.
6)Already discussed - you are wrong. ARE WE LOSING 700,000 JOBS A MONTH? WE WERE A YEAR AGO.
7)Once again - do it. I hope you do pass it, via Reconciliation - that's exactly what I am hoping for. That will be great! Go ahead put it in the hands of a group of bureaucrats - what a track record! NOT RECONCILIATION - HOUSE NEEDS TO PASS SENATE BILL. ALL IT TAKES IS ONE VOTE ANY TIME BETWEEN NOW AND JANUARY 3RD.
1)Number 1 you don't set the rules - you are not the one in charge. Of course it's a start, that is how you correct a bad situation by making incremental changes. How do you eat an elephant - one bite at a time. I have already addressed the across the board cuts I would make and raise taxes at the lower level. How long does not matter - the point is to get started. I like Chris Christie's approach. MY POINT IS THAT YOU CANNOT BALANCE THE BUDGET - I HAVE GIVEN YOU & JIM & EVERYONE ELSE A CHANCE TO EXPLAIN HOW, BUT YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT. THATS ALL. - Only your view
By increasing the tax rate at the lower levels you would have a much broader tax base.
2)Hiring new government employees is an insult at a time like this, we don't have the money to pay for what we have right now - why are taking on more. We should be removing all the duplication and cutting back 10%. YOU DO NOT CONCENTRATE ON SPENDING CUTS DURING A RECESSION UNLESS YOUR NAME IS HOOVER (R). ITS VERY BASIC.
- You don't hire more
3)You are wrong, it's been proven time and time again just taxing the rich doesn't work - just ask California, New York and New Jersey. They just move on to a better tax climate. WHERE WILL THE RICH GO? WE HAVE THE LOWEST TAXES IN THE WESTERN INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD. IF CANADA HAD A ZERO TAX RATE LIKE NEVADA, YOU MIGHT HAVE A POINT, EXCEPT THEIR TAXES ARE HIGHER THAN OURS. I'm sure they would find a way they always do.
4) I cannot really see discussing this any longer. You have your view and I have mine - we just reiterate our views over and over. You give credit to Clinton and I give it to the private sector. It's a waste of our time. In the future I will just label it as "previously discussed". WHATEVER YOU DO, MARK, DON'T EVER GIVE CREDIT TO A DEMOCRAT. THAT IS GOOD FAITH AND FAIR PLAY, REPUBLICAN STYLE. It has nothing to do with a Democrat - I already said I would have voted for Bayh. "Previously discussed"
5)Actually financially the Bush years were great for most of America - 5% unemployment and people were making lots of money. I made more $$$ than ever. It was just the last 15 months of his presidency that were tough. But once again the housing bubble was not started by Bush. Once again government involvement hatched it. IT'S AMAZING WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH MASSIVE DEFICITS DURING TIMES OF GROWTH, YEAR AFTER YEAR. The housing bubble was the fault of government - see Janet Reno, Franklin Raines, Fannie, Freddie, Clinton, Barney Frank, Dodd, Accorn and on and on.
6)Already discussed - you are wrong. ARE WE LOSING 700,000 JOBS A MONTH? WE WERE A YEAR AGO. No, I know under Obama
7)Once again - do it. I hope you do pass it, via Reconciliation - that's exactly what I am hoping for. That will be great! Go ahead put it in the hands of a group of bureaucrats - what a track record! NOT RECONCILIATION - HOUSE NEEDS TO PASS SENATE BILL. ALL IT TAKES IS ONE VOTE ANY TIME BETWEEN NOW AND JANUARY 3RD.
Yes, yes I'm hoping for Reconciliation with the Public Option - that would be the best. They are working on it right now.
Keep your fingers crossed.
Okay Mark, I get your schtick. Easily dismiss any Democratic accomplishments and do the same with Republican failures. You'll never need to modify your political views if you simply come up with an excuse for everything.
Not at all - the Democrats including Clinton have had many accomplishments. I just don't feel Clinton deserves all the credit you give him. And he was a far better President than the light weight we have now. Speaking of excuses - you are nothing but excuses for Obama. Once again this guy is in so far over his head. No clue, but did run a good campaign. Have a good weekend Mr Diversity!
A dream come true -
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100219/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare1
No, Mark, PASSING the legislation is a dream come true. Its not enough to simply propose it. The governing party needs to govern...
Oh Believe me on want to pass by way of Reconciliation - though for different reasons than you!
Mark -
You love the horse race as much (or more) than the policy debate! You are a very competitive guy - that is an observation, not intended as criticism.
You are right! No offense taken. It's been great sparring with you this week. You're a smart guy. Have a good weekend!
Post a Comment