"The problem that I've seen in the debate that's been taking place and in some of these Tea Party events is, I think they're misidentifying sort of who the culprits are here...As I said before, we had to take some emergency steps last year. But the majority of economists will tell you that the emergency steps we take are not the problem long-term. The problems long-term are the problems that I talked about earlier. We had two tax cuts that weren't paid for, two wars that weren't paid for. We've got a population that's getting older. We're all demanding services, but our taxes have actually substantially gone down.
So the challenge, I think, for the Tea Party movement is to identify, specifically, what would you do?...It's not enough just to say get control of spending. I think it's important for you to say, I'm willing to cut veterans' benefits or I'm willing to cut Medicare or Social Security benefits or I'm willing to see these taxes go up. What you can't do, which is what I've been hearing a lot from the other side, is we're going to control government spending, we're going to propose $4 trillion of additional tax cuts, and that magically somehow things are going to work..."
—President Barak Obama
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
1-Switch SS gradually from a defined benefit program to a defined contribution plan.
2-Repeal Obamacare and replace with free competition across state lines.
3-Across the board rollback of government spending to 2008 levels (Pres. Harding slashed govt. spending 50% during a much worse economic downturn)
4-Extend Bush tax rates and offer an alternative of the a Flat Fair Tax at a 20% rate with the first 25m excluded.
5-eliminate departments of education, energy and EPA
Then stand back and watch an economic explosion and full employment within one to two years.
how can we have full employment in the u.s. when the multi-nationals can utilize robots and hire wage slaves in china and elsewhere?
GE just closed the LAST operation that makes IN THE U.S.A. light bulbs... NOW
we will be forced to switch to a more expensive, radio-active funny-looking light-bulb
THAT IS MADE IN CHINA, TAIWAN and other 'off-shore' slave-labor nations that we cannot compete with!
AND, dig this CHINA now wants to buy a part of GM...
Your wife is a teacher Jim, no? You think eliminating the department of education is a way to save the government money? How about slashing the cost of the militaries budget? I'd rather have educated children than more weapons any day.
Caitlin
Exactly Caitlin. Republican, and some Democratic, Senators refuse even to listen to the generals about planes and weapons the generals say they don't need, and are a waste of money, but if cut would mean loss of jobs in those Senators' states. So instead of creating useful jobs for things we need, politicians—including almost every Republican in the Senate and some Democrat—subsidize non-defense corporations that send jobs overseas and defense contractors here who create budget draining excess etc. Not to mention all the bases around the world that protect corporate interests rather than security interests and so should be shut down.
Caitlan,
I am all for keeping the Department of Education if it was authorized as a Federal power in the Constitution. It is not. I might even be sympathetic to it's continuation if it could be proved that academic achievement had improved since 1979 when Jimmy Carter got it authorized by congress. I am unaware of any such proof, but am open to persuasion. You are correct Michael in that pork barrel and earmarks have been a bi-partisan effort. That is one of the reasons that the Tea Parties have taken hold.
You may have noticed from Loyeen's post's that I very definately do not speak for her on educational or political subjects.
Hmmm, let me see Jim. Uh er "Department of Homeland Security." Those framers surely included that in the Constitution.
~ Willy
Willy,You may want to take another look, in the preamble.
"Provide for the common defense"
Followed by "promote the general Welfare," thus, education, energy, environment.
Robert, Good point, although I believe a cost benefit analysis would find at least 2 and possibly all of the agencies wanting.
Benefit is hard to quantify in most cases Jim. By nature, bureaucracies are inefficient, be they government or corporations.
Robert,
I believe we have reached partial agreement. However, local bureacracies are typically more responsive than federal ones. The closer proximity to the voters the better.
Post a Comment