AMERICA AWOKE IN 2009 AND A TSUNAMI SWEPT THE LAND IN 2010
Posted on 11/11/2010 12:39:23 AM PST by tallyhoe
How do you do that? Already the Republican Majority have proposed rolling the budget back to 2008 levels, that's excellent and doable. It also kills most of Obama's agenda.
Next, cut taxes, reduce regulation, eliminate the most absurd tariffs (eg sugar) and create real free trade agreements country by country - put money in people's pockets and confidence in future ventures. That creates growth and growth in jobs.
Limit future budgets to population growth plus inflation and the deficit disappears and the debt gets reduced over a thirty year period ala this example: How to Solve the Deficit with No Pain
Now that's the wise way to do it. Why? You cannot be maligned for not caring - the deficit comes down gently and becomes a surplus which then reduces the debt.
You also encourage growth which further reduces the debt and creates jobs. You become the party that cares enough and gave us fiscal responsibility, jobs and growth.
Which then gets you re-elected to majorities in Congress for forty years during which time you return America to her Constitutional roots.
We need time over which to do that. We cannot afford to have power whipsaw between liberty and slavery every few years. That's a war of attrition and we'll lose.
What do you think of all that?
I agree we need to reduce regulation across the board. That's preferable to reducing taxes beyond the Bush cuts at this time because it doesn't cost any money -- in fact, it saves money, and it's far more likely to get private money off the sidelines and into the market than another marginal rate cut. I agree tariffs should be eliminated eventually - right now considering our financial situation, I'd settle for reducing them by 20%.
I agree that we need to limit the growth of federal spending in future years. I'd like to cut 80% of federal agencies, but that's never going to happen. I'd love to settle for a constitutional amendment that does exactly what you says -- limits federal spending increases to inflation + population growth. I'd put an exemption in the amendment so that if the President thinks we need to declare war on a country (and thus boost defense spending), that Congress passing a declaration of war will suspend the amendment for the war's duration and allow DEFENSE-RELATED spending to rise at a rate that Congress sees fit, but non-defense related spending should never be allowed to increase beyond the scope of that provided for it in the amendment.
I also think that you need to exempt my colleagues and me from the reversion to 2008 levels of spending. That would be roughly a 20% pay cut for me and I'm already underpaid by at least 50k compared to what someone in my specialty makes in the private sector. You'd have lots of doctors quitting the VA if that happened.
“They don’t pay income or property taxes, they get refundable credits.”
Some on the left are quite rich. There’s Hollywood and there are all these rabidly secular techies who support govt funding of green jobs and embryonic stem cell research.
“IMHO, this is too little too late. This latest Bernaki scheme will do far more damage than than extending the tax cuts will remedy.”
That’s why Palin’s latest posts are so important. To most Republicans, tax cuts are the solution to every problem and ignore the Fed.
And yet they still want to raise the debt level to 21% of the GDP. It’s not really tax cuts.
Exactly. It’s all smoke and mirrors.
In their place I wouldn't be too worried yet; a senior advisor "suggesting" that the president might do thus-and-such is a long way from the president actually doing anything. I think that if Obama does cave in on this, it will be to provide cover for the executive orders through which he's going to start implementing the agenda he won't be able to pass through congress.
Nice pictures!
Democrats do! So they can spend more and more!
So let me get this straight. We are in the current economic mess because idiot Bush cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Now, the messiah is going to extend those tax cuts. If the tax cuts on the wealthy were truly the bad economic move that Obama claims they were, wouldn’t he just allow them to expire. The republican house could vote to extend them, but Obama could just veto the legislation. Doing nothing allows them to expire automatically. I just don’t get it. If Obama is convinced that the Bush tax cuts were so bad for the national economy, just let them expire! Why compromise on the one thing that destroyed the economy?
Here is what I believe! Obama has a history of ducking votes when his party does not have the upper hand! He needs cover for his votes or he needs to blame somebody when he goes out on a limb which is not often! So his party is in the minority and he doesn’t have some one to blame if they expire so hence he will sign on to the cuts for every one!
“...and will sign the bill when passed.”
Lying weasel. In the mean time, the cuts will expire, and the Dems will obstruct.
Exactly.
Every few weeks, some stupid story appears in Time or the Huffington Post that the Democrats are secretly working on some sort of way to prevent the massive tax hikes that begin in January.
But no legislation is ever written or filed. This is all shuck-and-jive by the Democrats. They have no intention of stopping these tax hikes. No Democrat ever wants stop any tax hikes.
Democrats live to tax and spend, and they are slavering over the rapidly approaching tax hikes. Vast new revenues to the Treasury are manna to the Democrats.
The “vast new revenues” will be short-lived. The vast new control over the economy, however, will last as long as the predictable demagoguery over the new Congress’ efforts to reinstate the then-expired expired cuts.
I hope not! If so we need to hit the streets!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.