Everyone? You have the nerve to tell someone else "Only because your opinion has no basis in fact" when you say something that ridiculous? The whole budget drama from a few weeks ago was a joke. The Republicans only wanted to cut a small, almost meaningless slice. Then the Dems reduced the cuts much further, using ludicrous rhetoric about "throwing granny in the street" and such. After all the typical tricks and hand waving, only $352M was cut, not the advertised $38.5 billion. Just 1/100th of the original claim. Compared to the debt, that's like getting a $20 discount on a new Ferrari. And even the CBO admits that we'll actually spend $3.3 billion more this year than in 2010, once so-called emergency spending is included: http://nationaljournal.com/budget/c...ending-by-only-352-million-this-year-20110413 So this notion that we're all trying to be austere and cut where we can is a complete crock. There are billions we can cut before tax hikes are even mentioned. We can start with defense. I was a military officer in a former life and know how incredibly wasteful the Pentagon is. And we don't need bases all over the world--nor to be involved in at least three conflicts. Then we have entitlements. Why is 65 considered the retirement age? That started back in the 1930s when life expectancy was only a few years beyond 65. But wait...we're slowly moving it up and now you have to be a whopping 66 to get full retirement benefits (though Medicare still starts at 65). What are these arbitrary numbers based on? And this is only for retirement--for those who actually paid into the system for years. You can get disability as a youngster and Medicare only 2 years later. And there's plenty of questionable disabilities and a ton of fraud going on with Medicare. Then we have whole Federal agencies that can be dissolved. We survived fine until the late 1970s without the Departments of Energy & Education, Carter-era bastions of bureacratic nonsense. And there are many others. These (and many other issues) need to be dealt with before a single penny is added to anyone's taxes.
Sure, since Bush's tax cuts had already been implemented, eh? http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/12/reagans-omb-director-bush-tax-cuts.html
Maybe they ought to do a documentary on the making of Atlas Shrugged. Something's gotta give here. Where are all the Tea Partisans and why aren't they paying good money to watch bad cinema? Did they spend all their money on period costumes? They have already demonstrated that they can be sold anything, including themselves down the river... Who is John Galt? Evidently, the answer is: who gives a shit?
I read what you said, I didnt respond because you didnt make an argument. Your response was merely to tell me i didnt know what i was talking about. That is not an argument. I made three long posts based on my view point in that thread which you could have argued with but instead you just told me that i dont know what im talking about, without ever supplying an actual argument of your own. Yes, Canadian rates are low, however while Bernanke contemplates QE3, Mark Carney is currently raising rates in Canada which has already lead to a stronger dollar and Canada is doing just fine. The funny thing is that it is infact Canadians who are getting a huge boost from Bernanke and Obama's, policy not Americans, The price of Oil has doubled since Obama took office just 2 years ago, Canadians should be shining Obama and Bernankes shoes. Given the fact that america is, and always will be a net importer of natural resources, do you think it is a good idea to destroy the dollar? The price of oil is the same price it was in 2007, yet Canda's economy is just now starting to outperform the rest of the world. If this argument is true, and it is solely based on commodities why wasnt Canada dominating in 2007? Why is America's economy doing so much more poorly then the rest of the world, when they are literally flooding the system with dollars, that are all going into government programs, as opposed to leaving the money with the businesses. Why is Canada doing so much better today with lower regulations, as opposed to Obama who came in and created more and more regulations? The only thing Obama and bernanke have accomplished is the destruction of the dollar, and inflation, private sector people are not making 20% more today then they were when Obama took office.
Once again, you're way off base. You actually have to read Stockman to know where he's coming from. The media tries to make him their darling, but he's much closer to "Atlas Shrugged" than "Gabfly's Living off Productive Taxpayers." He'd MUCH rather make the spending cuts I mentioned than raise taxes. Find his interview in Reason.
There you go again, an insult instead of saying what you mean. Are you implying that Obama didnt raise regulations in the states? Edit: I re-read that..... i didnt mean t imply canada has lower regulations overall, i meant to say that canada didnt raise regulations where as Obama did, that was an obvious screw up on my part.
Meanwhile, he thinks the Bush tax cuts are a $10 trillion mistake and the biggest fiscal mistake in history. Meanwhile, he said extending the Bush tax cuts won't stimulate the economy, the fact that the tax cut extensions will expire on the eve of the 2012 elections will panic politicians and force them to renew them yet again, and that "we're destroying the economy on Uncle Sam's credit card." http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/12/reagans-omb-director-bush-tax-cuts.html
You comparison is so off the wall, so apple-and-orange, that you are either obtuse or are trying to wear me down. Either way, I've had my fill, thanks. You compare Canada's regulatory environment with that of the US?! Are you serious? Canada's comparatively rock solid financial and banking system that prevented it from running into the same trouble that the US did? Seriously? One notable achievement during Harper's Conservative reign is that Canada has one of the poorest environmental records of the industrialized countries. Have a nice evening.
reason: Youâve emerged as a fierce proponent of letting all of the Bush-era tax rates expire and going back to the Clinton rates. Why do you want to revert to higher tax rates? David Stockman: In pure philosophy, lower tax rates would be better. The problem is that weâve had a 30-year referendum on spendingâevery aspect of the welfare state. We made a tiny bit of progress in â81 that was restored over the course of the next couple of decades. Then we finally had Republican government in the Bush era, both in the Congress and in the White House, and nothing was cut. Everything was ratified. In fact, they added to Medicare through the drug benefit. So spending cuts are the main problem. It all started with Reagan not cutting them along with taxes.