love this

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Z- good response, but here is the kicker. Politics aside, we know for a fact the O administration gave millions to these green energy cos that went defunct. That was millions of OUR money. Why would I want to give MORE? We could have saved millions by the govt doing nothing, right? I dont see one example of govt spending doing any good. I see plenty examples of my spending do others good. I do agree that taxes should be changed. I dont agree with the rate increase constantly being proposed. I think we should change the capital gains tax and close loopholes and remove the AMT. There are gives and takes in there that will benefit the economy as a whole.

I don't think we are far apart either on this. The solar issues is ridiculous. Why the heck huge loans are given out that aren't backed by insurance is beyond me. The fdup thing is the writing was on the wall. On the other hand, how much money was lost in no-bid jobs to Haliburton over the previous administration. Both sides are bad at that crap.
The problem now is there is an overt policy that Republicans in congress will not do anything that helps Obama. That does no one any good.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by zimmy

See, you and I could run the country I agree we spend too much in general, but I also see the facts that show we cannot cut our way out of the deficit. The longer it goes on, the worse it gets. Also, a recession or the beginning of a recovery is economically the wrong time to make drastic cuts. If the current Republicans would have budged even a little bit on taxes for the very highest earners, congress and the president could at least work some things out. The influence of the tea party and election politics prevented that from happening.

PFFFFTTTT!!!! ( )

Pelosi, Reed, and Frank have no desire to cut on where we spend MOST of the money. They want to cut defense in order to free MORE money for entitlements.

We've been paying for SS / Medicare for our professional lives and they have been borrowing against that to fuel other stuff - like spending more than we take in.

I do agree that now is a tough time to make cuts BUTTTTTT the times when it was good to make cuts the left side of the aisle SPENT MORE MONEY. THEY REGULATED to the nth degree and have stifled rather than fostered innovation.

They have put more and more teat out there for the mob to suckle on.

I used to be a Dem, now I am independent. I refuse to be associated with EITHER party as both are just pocketing the donations and catering to the lobbyists.

At least the Tea Party wants us to stop spending like drunken sailors. They want us to go back to our roots a bit that some smart guys figured out a couple hundred years ago. The left wants to keep kicking the can down the road (I used to love that phrase but it was worn down the past few months) time and time again and point fingers like little sissy 'yotches blaming everyone else but themselves. They REFUSE to buckle down and get something done.

Personally I would like to see 80% of both parties tossed in the klink as enemies foriegn AND DOMESTIC.

Sorry - getting worked up but I do weep for my country.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I don't think we are far apart either on this. The solar issues is ridiculous. Why the heck huge loans are given out that aren't backed by insurance is beyond me. not too hard to figure out actually...

The fdup thing is the writing was on the wall. On the other hand, how much money was lost in no-bid jobs to Haliburton over the previous administration. Both sides are bad at that crap. FactCheck.org: Anti-Bush Ad Overstates Case Against Halliburton

The problem now is there is an overt policy that Republicans in congress will not do anything that helps Obama. That does no one any good.

why would Republicans help Obama?...the Democrats won't even help Obama....he wants to continue many disasterous policies that I'm sure you're "many, many" economists fully support

btw...House Passes Obama Jobs Bill Provision

October 27, 2011 12:57 P.M. By Andrew Stiles
The House overwhelmingly approved a measure to eliminate a much-maligned rule requiring government agencies to withhold 3 percent of payments to government contractors. This provision, which was included in President Obama’s $450 billion “jobs” bill, passed by a vote of 405 to 16.

Earlier this week, the White House announced its support of the House bill, as well as second measure to cover the cost of repealing the rule (about $11.2 billion over ten years) by tightening eligibility requirements for Medicare and other health benefit programs, which the House also passed today, 262 to 157. The idea was taken from the president’s most recent “deficit” package.

The House has now passed a total of 17 jobs bills that are still awaiting action in the Democrat-controlled Senate, and Republicans are hoping to ramp up pressure on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) to act.

the "cuts" to which you refer in most cases amount to little more than reductons in the rates of growth of government programs and that is viciously attacked by the dems...

the ONLY time that we can talk about cutting government is during a downturn like this and there shouldn't be an additional penny in increased spending until massive reductions in the size and scope of government occur and future spending is reigned in and current unfunded programs and promises are on solid footing...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Apparently you have thought long and hard so this might be hard for you to understand; most economists say the last thing that should be done in a recession is cuts. The economy needs an influx of money and people need jobs. Your major cuts idea would intially lead to the loss of 100,000's of jobs at a time when the economy needs people to spend money. Taxes on the wealthy would not fix the problem, but returning to the tax policies considered reasonable under Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton would do a huge amount toward rudicing the yearly deficit, which would increase consumer confidence. Long term deficit reduction requires cuts and a reduction in tax loopholes. There is no plan that gets us out of the deficit without tax increases. WHen I bring that up here, the response from many is that we have to cut first. I disagree. Go back to what I started with: many, many economists say that the last thing you should do during a recession is cut. The tea party types mix anger and frustration about taxes with the current economic situation. They are two different things. A recession does not end by cutting. Long term deficit reduction could be done with cuts and increases in taxes.

"Your major cuts idea would intially lead to the loss of 100,000's of jobs at a time when the economy needs people to spend money"

You're saying that as government spends money, unemployment goes down, as jobs get created. Then perhaps you could explain tp us why, despite Obama dumping hundreds of billions of government spending into the economy, unemployment is much higher than when he took office?Those same economists you support, said Obamaa's "stimulus" would keep unemployment below 8%.

Anyway, I reject your premise that "most economists" say that spending cuts are counterproductive in a recession. I can quote just as many economists who say the last thingf you want to do in a recession is raise taxes.

So Zimmy, since you are opposed to cuts, please tell us how we generate another $60 trillion or so before the baby boomers die off? Because we need at least that much.

"Taxes on the wealthy would not fix the problem, but returning to the tax policies considered reasonable under Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton would do a huge amount toward rudicing the yearly deficit"

Where on Earth do you get your facts? Our deficit this year will be about $1.5 trillion. Please post some numbers to show that tax hikes can generate anywhere near that number.

And Zimmy? You're saying that tax rate increases will lead to more tax revenue? So why, then, did tax revenue reach it's highest levels ever, AFTER THE BUSH TAX CUTS? Answer...tax cuts can be stimulative.

You spouted lots of theory, with no facts to back it up. In fact, your theory is directly contradicted by actual events of the last 5 years. But hey, don't let historical fact get in the way of a liberal rant.

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

exact quote -
I am here because my friends and family all over the world are suffering. Life should be easy and fun."

enough said.

Exactly what the guy on his 2 year paid paternity leave in Germany said in front of the EU Bank

[zimmy]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;896650
You spouted lots of theory, with no facts to back it up. In fact, your theory is directly contradicted by actual events of the last 5 years. But hey, don't let historical fact get in the way of a liberal rant.[/QUOTE]

I knew you wouldn't get it. Liberal rant

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by JohnR

PFFFFTTTT!!!! ( )



I do agree that now is a tough time to make cuts BUTTTTTT the times when it was good to make cuts the left side of the aisle SPENT MORE MONEY. THEY REGULATED to the nth degree and have stifled rather than fostered innovation.

2001-2009? That was the left spending the money?

[nightfighter]

Thermal Imaging Reveals Occupy London Camp Mostly Empty at Night | Video | TheBlaze.com

Found this kind of damning... Can't even do a protest right... Too dependent on their technology. Probably in a comfy hotel charging their Iphones and drinking a $6 cup of Starbucks... We're getting multiple generations letting their smart phones do ALL their thinking and answering. Get lost in a corn maze or apple orchard, just whip out your Iphone and call 911..... The future looks bleak to me on many fronts. Occupy WS is but the latest demonstration of our nation's continuing downward spiral.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by zimmy

2001-2009? That was the left spending the money?

Some of it - GWB wasn't slow to flow the money either - doesn't make it right.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I knew you wouldn't get it. Liberal rant

Sorry Zimmy, it's not that I don't get it, it's that I proved you wrong...

You claimed the economy needs govt spending to create jobs, and you offered no support whatsoever. FACT...Obama has dumped hundreds of billions into the economy, and unemployment increased. You offer no reply, because you cannot.

You also claimed that raising taxes on the wealthy would put a serious dent in our annual deficit, but you offered no support whatsoever. FACT...Our annual deficit ($1.5 trillion)is 15 times higher than what liberals claim tax hikes on the wealthy would rake in ($90 billion). You offer no reply, because you cannot.

You claim that tax cuts on the wealthy lower tax revenue collected, but you offered no support whatsoever. FACT...after the Bush tax cuts, tax revenues collected hit an all-time high. FACT...after the Bush tax cuts, the portion of taxes paid by the wealthy hit an all-time high, which lowers the burden on the rest of us. You offer no reply, because you cannot.

There's simply no talking to liberals. Even when you are mathematically proven wrong, you won't consider re-thinking your position. That's called "brainwashed".

The facts may not support your Marxist narrative Zimmy, but them there is still the facts.

If I'm wrong, show me some different facts. I am rational and persuadable.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Long term deficit reduction requires cuts and a reduction in tax loopholes. There is no plan that gets us out of the deficit without tax increases. WHen I bring that up here, the response from many is that we have to cut first. I disagree.

while he rarely offeres any evidence to back up his many assertions, he did say that a combination of cuts and tax increases(reduced loopholes) are needed, I don't think anyone would argue with that...

btw..many of these "loopholes" are merely government established incentives to get businesses and individuals to act in a certain way through the tax code, we blame the businesses and individuals for taking the carrots?

this disagreement is ...which comes first...

unfortunately, the track record and tendency from those in government on both sides of the aisle shows little concern for a reduction in the size and scope of government...any increase in taxes will simply be an affirmation to continue current programs at their current growth rates and a return to searching for new and faster ways to expand government...

like giving a fat guy a candybar after telling him he needs to go on a diet...

the fat guys tells you to give him the candy bar first because he's really hungry and that he'll start the diet at the end of the month...promise

apologies to any fat guys that I've offended....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

while he rarely offeres any evidence to back up his many assertions, he did say that a combination of cuts and tax increases(reduced loopholes) are needed, I don't think anyone would argue with that...

btw..many of these "loopholes" are merely government established incentives to get businesses and individuals to act in a certain way through the tax code, we blame the businesses and individuals for taking the carrots?

this disagreement is ...which comes first...

unfortunately, the track record and tendency from those in government on both sides of the aisle shows little concern for a reduction in the size and scope of government...any increase in taxes will simply be an affirmation to continue current programs at their current growth rates and a return to searching for new and faster ways to expand government...

like giving a fat guy a candybar after telling him he needs to go on a diet...

the fat guys tells you to give him the candy bar first because he's really hungry and that he'll start the diet at the end of the month...promise

apologies to any fat guys that I've offended....

"a combination of cuts and tax increases(reduced loopholes) are needed, I don't think anyone would argue with that..."

We need more tax revenue, meaning, we need more tax dollars. Raising tax rates does not always increase revenue, just like when a store raises prices, that does not mean revenue will increase (not if you price yourself out of the market). If the economy grows, then even at the same tax rates, we have more tax revenue collected. We need to grow the stagnant economy (a raising tide does indeed lift all boats), not reduce anyone's after-tax pay.

Finally, every analysis I've ever seen, suggests that the effect of tax hikes is almost completely meaningless in the face of the debt. We simply cannot generate another $60 trillion in the next 30 years, even if we adopt North Korea's tax rates, we cannot begin to tax our way out of this. The effect of tax hikes is so insignificant, it's barely worth talking about, yet liberals are fanatically fixated on taxing the wealthy.

I do not like the situation we are in. If there was any reasonable analysis out there that said we could put a meaningful dent in the debt by tweaking taxes on the rich, that would make me very happy. I wish that were the case. But it's not.

Tax hikes might get us 10% of what we need. That means that the other 90% must come from spending cuts. I don't like that any more than liberals do. Unlike liberals, however, I am able to accept it.

If Obama is correct, taxing the wealthy more will bring in $90 billion a year. Our ANNUAL deficit is $1.5 trillion, our current debt is $14 trillion, and we need at least another $50 trillion for social security and Medicare (some actuaries say we need $100 trillion).

What is $90 billion a year? Nothing. If we collected $90 billion more in taxes from the rich, and if we used every cent of that to pay off curent debt, all that means is our debt increases $1.41 trillion this year, instead of $1.5 trillion. Whoop-dee-doo. Our debt is still increasing by more than a trillion dollars.

Scott, where am I wrong? I just don't get it.

[scottw]

simplification of the tax code and elimination of "loopholes" as mentioned would effectively be a tax increase, it would also result in many who share none of the federal burden currently to make a contribution, would make it tougher for politicians to build in set asides and favors through tax policy carrots and business would not find it as necessary to buy favorable status and treatment...the current tax code is the playground of the well connected, all of these foundations and shelters that are little more that political arms of the various interests and government subsidies and investments are doled out based on patronage...

simply raising taxes on "the rich" is a desperate concept being offered by a desperate man in a situation that he loaths, which is that America is no longer in love with him so he needs to return to his roots and drum up some anger.... the people that have money will find ways to shelter their money through the complexities of the current tax code, the people hit the hardest will be those that are upwardly mobile, actively moving, investing and growing their particular field and that's who will be burdened at a time when their investments and energy are needed...

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Sorry Zimmy, it's not that I don't get it, it's that I proved you wrong...



The facts may not support your Marxist narrative Zimmy, but them there is still the facts.

If I'm wrong, show me some different facts. I am rational and persuadable.

You are also very humble I said a return to the tax rates on the wealthy of Reagan, Clinton, or Bush 1 for that matter would affect the YEARLY DEFICITS. We need to reduce the borrowing first. I then followed with long term deficit reduction requires both tax increases and cuts. Just because you don't understand that, does not mean your statements are facts. I guess supporting the tax policies of each of the last presidents except GWB makes me a Marxist. I am a big boy, you aren't going to make me feel sad or inferior with your name calling. Actual taxes paid by the wealthy has declined since 1995. Why hasn't that policy created a booming economy? Oh wait, Obama wrecked the economy, that's right. I think JohnR's thoughts on capital gains taxes are right on target. The most reasonable analysis of economics, in my opinion (I guess if they were your ideas, they would be facts), is that both taxes and cuts are necessary to solve the long term budget issues. That is not an original idea of mine, but it makes sense based on mathematics. I will admit, you are right, just taxes can't do it. I have pointed that out each time I have posted. Maybe you missed that

[JohnnyD]

Arguing about which group is more screwed up - liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans - is like arguing which caliber gun is better to shoot yourself in the head with.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You are also very humble I said a return to the tax rates on the wealthy of Reagan, Clinton, or Bush 1 for that matter would affect the YEARLY DEFICITS I guess supporting the tax policies of each of the last presidents except GWB makes me a Marxist. . Actual taxes paid by the wealthy has declined since 1995.

which one?

1981 = 69.25
1984= 50
1987= 38.5
1988= 29.75
1990= 32.45
1991= 34
1992= 35.8
1993= 36.9
1999= 39.6
2002= 38.6
2011= 35

and which set of tax rules do you want to apply to your new rate?

in 1999 the top 1% paid 36.18% and the top 10% paid 66.45% of all Federal personal income taxes
in 2009 the top 1% paid 36.73% and the top 10% paid 70.47% of all Federal personal income taxes ... source IRS

in a little state teetering on the edge of doom with a left of democrat governor and a democrat treasurer we cannot take even modest steps to address the spending because the people who actually run the state will not stand for it


RI unions say pension problem overstated
By David Klepper
Associated Press / October 27, 2011 PROVIDENCE, R.I.—Rhode Island labor unions that are fighting a proposed public pension overhaul accused state Treasurer Gina Raimondo on Thursday of overstating the problem to justify extreme changes.

Their remarks came during a third day of legislative hearings on a proposal by Raimondo and Gov. Lincoln Chafee and a day after hundreds of supporters and opponents of the legislation filled the Statehouse to weigh in on the bill.

Paul Valletta of the State Association of Firefighters said Raimondo "cooked the books" with actuarial assumptions and conservative market projections that exaggerate the pension system's problems. He accused her of supporting "draconian" changes to the retirement system to raise her political profile.

"She created this problem and now she's riding in on a white horse," Valletta said.

Raimondo, a Democrat, insists that rising pension costs could cripple governments and force tax hikes or budget cuts. The state's unfunded pension liability stands at $7 billion, and the state's pension costs are set to double next year to over $600 million. The state retirement system covers 66,000 public teachers, state and municipal workers, police, firefighters and judges.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You are also very humble I said a return to the tax rates on the wealthy of Reagan, Clinton, or Bush 1 for that matter would affect the YEARLY DEFICITS. We need to reduce the borrowing first. I then followed with long term deficit reduction requires both tax increases and cuts. Just because you don't understand that, does not mean your statements are facts. I guess supporting the tax policies of each of the last presidents except GWB makes me a Marxist. I am a big boy, you aren't going to make me feel sad or inferior with your name calling. Actual taxes paid by the wealthy has declined since 1995. Why hasn't that policy created a booming economy? Oh wait, Obama wrecked the economy, that's right. I think JohnR's thoughts on capital gains taxes are right on target. The most reasonable analysis of economics, in my opinion (I guess if they were your ideas, they would be facts), is that both taxes and cuts are necessary to solve the long term budget issues. That is not an original idea of mine, but it makes sense based on mathematics. I will admit, you are right, just taxes can't do it. I have pointed that out each time I have posted. Maybe you missed that

Zimmy, in an earlier post, you said tax hikes would put a "big dent", or something like that, in the annual deficit. The annual deficit is $1.5 trillion. From what I recall,liberals say tax hikes on the rich MIGHT get us $90 billion. $90 billion is less than 1/15th of $1.5 trillion. Whoop-dee-doo.

Zimmy, can you answer a direct question? If social security and medicare need at least $50 trillion in the next 30 years, and you oppose conservative proposals to scale back the benefits, WHAT'S YOUR SOLUTION? Leave that problem for our kids and grandkids?

"Actual taxes paid by the wealthy has declined since 1995."

Really? Can you back that up please? Just because Sean Penn says it, doesn't make it fact.

"Why hasn't that policy created a booming economy? Oh wait, Obama wrecked the economy, that's right. "

The subprime mortgage crisis wrecked the economy. In my opinion, no one party caused that. Lots of blame to go around.

"both taxes and cuts are necessary to solve the long term budget issues."

I have asked you more than once to post some numbers that support the notion that tax hikes can have a meaningful impact. I keep asking, and you keep dodging.

We need more tax DOLLARS. If the economy grows, and tax rates stay the same, the feds get more tax dollars. That is the best solution. You cannot even prove that raising tax rates will result in more tax dollars collected...the Bush tax cuts proved that tax rates and tax dollars collected do not always move in the same direction.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Zimmy, in an earlier post, you said tax hikes would put a "big dent", or something like that, in the annual deficit. The annual deficit is $1.5 trillion. From what I recall,liberals say tax hikes on the rich MIGHT get us $90 billion. $90 billion is less than 1/15th of $1.5 trillion. Whoop-dee-doo.

The deficit did hit 1.5 trillion in 2010 but is shrinking and projected to be about 1/2 as big in a few years. 90 Billion out of $750 B is quite a lot of money, especially when you add up the cumulative impact.

We need more tax DOLLARS. If the economy grows, and tax rates stay the same, the feds get more tax dollars. That is the best solution. You cannot even prove that raising tax rates will result in more tax dollars collected...the Bush tax cuts proved that tax rates and tax dollars collected do not always move in the same direction.

Higher tax rates during a given year will absolutely result in increased tax revenue...every time.

To keep taxes low on the "hope" that the economy improves will quite possibly just saddle Americans with more debt. Don't forget that keeping taxes low during a deficit is actually increased SPENDING.

If the Bush tax cuts proved anything it's that investment in jobs the past decade was more a function of demand than supply.

-spence

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

The deficit did hit 1.5 trillion in 2010 but is shrinking and projected to be about 1/2 as big in a few years. 90 Billion out of $750 B is quite a lot of money, especially when you add up the cumulative impact.


Higher tax rates during a given year will absolutely result in increased tax revenue...every time.

To keep taxes low on the "hope" that the economy improves will quite possibly just saddle Americans with more debt. Don't forget that keeping taxes low during a deficit is actually increased SPENDING.

If the Bush tax cuts proved anything it's that investment in jobs the past decade was more a function of demand than supply.

-spence

To increase taxes without substantial and realistic cuts in spending will stifle growth as uncertainty in the Economy / Future will prevent people from hiring. My boss is considering hiring someone but won't because of uncertainty in the local market. And he is more liberal than Spence

We have sort of a circle jerk:

1. Some people want to Raise Taxes - won't work
2. Some people want to drastically cut spending - which means jobs - which means increases in federal assistance with the simultaneous loss of revenue (Taxes of lost jobs).
3. Some people (The Beast from New Bedford) want to cut defense spending so the money can be reallocated to others (no sheet - he has said this) all without a realistic look at balancing the force. We will be both weaker AND will sacrifice lots of jobs (see circle jerk #2).

We need to find a way to balance cuts and increase revenue by GROWING JOBS. If we put people to solid, decent paying jobs we will generate revenue from taxes and save money spent in assistance, bailouts, and employment recover acts.

We need to find sources of the economy that generate many levels of income. If you give money to road crews go get a little trickle down foe employes, cop details, engineering, and asphalt manufacturing. If you build ships for the Navy (remembering that we are a maritime nation dependent on trade) you trickle money to shipworkers, tool & die manufactures, steel industry, IT, systems engineering, port facilities, and still trickle down to road crews, asphalt manufacturing, and the like. Not to mention you don't send our Navy to sea in old, under maintained ships because the maintenance funds were robbed for some other Congress Pet Project.

There are other worthy avenues money can be sent to which generate multiple levels of prosperity; Bio / Pharma, realistic green jobs, innovation areas where we still have barely an edge - though that is slipping)> Shipbuilding that was just one that I have a glancing familiarity with. Sending the money to build roads - while greatly needed - doesn't much stimulate economy, it is a fairly dead end, no pun intended, that limits the amount of people it helps. Apologize - working on 2 hrs sleep - going to bed.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The deficit did hit 1.5 trillion in 2010 but is shrinking and projected to be about 1/2 as big in a few years. 90 Billion out of $750 B is quite a lot of money, especially when you add up the cumulative impact.


Higher tax rates during a given year will absolutely result in increased tax revenue...every time.

To keep taxes low on the "hope" that the economy improves will quite possibly just saddle Americans with more debt. Don't forget that keeping taxes low during a deficit is actually increased SPENDING.

If the Bush tax cuts proved anything it's that investment in jobs the past decade was more a function of demand than supply.

-spence

Spence, let's say the annual deficit decreases to $750B in a few years. The total debt in a few years will be north of $20 trillion, and when you factorin Social Security and Medicare, we needt at least $50 trillion. Spence, PLEASE tell me how we raise a significant portion of that by raising tax rates.

"Higher tax rates during a given year will absolutely result in increased tax revenue...every time. "

Spence, are you seriously saying that tax revenues collected would be maximized at tax rates of 100%? Really?

Earth to Spence...the largest tax revenues we ever collected were in the years immediately following the Bush tax cuts? Spence, how can that be? Answer...the growth in the economy more than offset the cut in rates. THAT'S how you do it. Grow the base, not reduce people's after-tax take home pay.

"Don't forget that keeping taxes low during a deficit is actually increased SPENDING."

It's also increased freedom, because the spending is voluntary. I'm all for increased consumer spending, if that's what people freely choose to do. I don't want my taxes increased to give paybacks to businesses like Solyndra that are politically well-connected. I thought the OWS morons were opposed to that type of crony-capitalism, but for some reason, it's OK when liberals payoff their supporters.

You are more inane than usual, Spence. Raising rax rates will not always increase revenue, just like raising prices doesn't always generate more revenue for a business. At some point, you cost yourself out of the market. Page 1 of every economics text says that when you increase the cost of something (including wealth), the demand for that something will decrease. We need to find the sweet spot...raising rates isn't always a goo dthing, just like raising prices isn't always a good thing. At least not here on Earth, where I live.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

[*]Some people want to drastically cut spending - which means jobs - .

The feds spent $500 million on Solyndra, which promptly went out of business. Not all spending is smart enough to create jobs. And that spending needs to be paid for at some point.

I don't "want" to cut spending. But I don't want to leave our kids with an bill for $50 or $60 trillion that they had no part of. And unfortunately, the math shows unequivocally that we will not solve this problem with tax hikes. Responding to a $50 trillion hole with tax hikes, seems to me, like making the beds on the Titanic while it's sinking. Maybe it makes some people feel good, but it doesn't address the problem.