I don't think that there is any question among sensible people that more spending to cure overspending is not a viable solution, and a balanced budget would be a nice goal to keep in mind. The problem is, who bears the burden? I'm not sure the republicans have much of a leg to stand on when answering for their culpability in this mess. Sure, there was some muffled grumbling about spending when GW was breaking the budget, and then it turned to a fever pitched roar when Obama continued in kind. Further, lowering taxes has done absolutely nothing to create jobs over the last decade, so that horse has been ridden and died. There is going to be pain for any real recovery to take place. The only question is, will those that have prospered the most take some civil responsibility and share that pain, pain that they very much took part in creating? Or will they say, that ain't how it's works kids. We got ours, fuck you!
If its not obvious to you that lower taxes or a low flat tax or no income tax at all will stimulate the economy fine. (even though graphs prove that revenues went up withing two years of Reagans tax cuts.) Lets just balance the budget. not with some 20 year b.s. plan.
I don't think the current Senate and President can balance the budget. The estimate is that the 2011 budget year that ended June 30 had a deficit of $1.5 Trillion. That's more than the SuperCommittee is supposed to find in savings over 10 years and it isn't likely they will succeed even at that.
Speaking of which I noticed this morning that many of the members of that committee either are or have ties to lobbyists representing industries and companies that would suffer most from any budget cuts. Amazing how no one thought of that when the committee was being formed.
They just plan on nobody paying much attention. The few that do are overwhelmed by the slothery of the majority.