Seems to me like the Democrats, outside of Obama are at fault here too. Everytime someone suggests entitlement reform, morons like Reid and Pelosi instantly cut it down.
From what I've read Obama himself had agreed to structural entitlement reform, and $3 trillion in cuts, along with increase in revenues from the tax system being reformed. Lowering the corporate tax rate was also part of the plan.
A great start if you ask me. The money you save from not being in Iraq/Afghanistan is also good, but shouldn't be looked upon as actual cuts, because Congress has a habit of just spending that money anyways.
I don't agree with a balanced budget amendment at this point. I think it is a naive way to look at how things happen. Sure, we all love a balanced budget, no debt and no deficit, but that obviously won't happen for a while.
Focus on some immediate cuts to lower the debt, and a decent 10 year plan. Of course you HAVE to reform the entitlement system. A lot of states have done this with great results and the Fed basically has no choice. If you restructure the tax code to close loopholes, you MUST lower the actual corporate tax rate.
The republicans still cling to this notion of "starving the beast". They believe that somehow if they can reduce revenues to a level that will force the government to cut departments and spending, automatically government spending will decrease.
The problem with this argument is that you still have to deal with the large debt already on the books, the retort is rising revenues due to economic growth will deal with that.
Why not do both? as some posters have already suggested. You have to pay off the debt, so increase taxes (a tea party fariy just died) and reduce entitlements.
Regarding "Obama Care", I don't remember the Bush medicaid bill being call "Bush Care", maybe it should have been. The truth is the US prides itself on having the best healthcare system in the world, I will call it one of the most dysfunctional and inefficient as well. Highest per capita spend in the world? Leading cause of bankruptcies in the US? how is that the best health care system in the world?
Of course it's political. Obama himself voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006. It's advantageous for the party not in power to paint the party in power as frivolous spenders.
Come back in ten years when Obamacare is actually on the books and the money is actually being spent to fund it.
Easy to compare 8 years to 4 years when the 8 years for Bush are over, and we actually see how much money he spent.
Because at the rate Obama and the Democrats are going, without cuts they'll make Bush look like a child when it comes to spending money.
I actually think that part of the reason that the Republicans can only get whackos and unqualified candidates out to run against Obama though is that there are no easy solutions. Its great to say "Obama has spent too much and mishandled things"...but what exactly should've taken place?
Other than saying the government is too far in debt the Republicans can't really point to anything that they would do differently that would make an enormous difference. Sure, they would change healthcare...how exactly?
In reality the one solution is obvious: raise taxes and cut spending. That solution gets you approximately zero votes though, on either side of the aisle.
So I need to ask the stupid question. If this stalemate is continued through this week, it seems likely that the President would invoke the 14th ammendment
Quote:
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
If he does this does the house instigate impeachment proceedings, it would never get beyond the house, but is this a likely course of action?
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Forget revising income taxes, why not just bring in a consumption tax?
Its efficient, and taxing consumption is less politically sensitive than increasing the tax on income.
I'm for it, but the left/right arguments are:
Left: It's terribly regressive, unless you remove food / clothing. But once you identify a loophole, those with the financial means will exploit the loophole. Then you're back where you began, and the middle class takes it in the shorts.
So I need to ask the stupid question. If this stalemate is continued through this week, it seems likely that the President would invoke the 14th ammendment
If he does this does the house instigate impeachment proceedings, it would never get beyond the house, but is this a likely course of action?
I hope so, we have seen Boehner cry in almost two months!
Seriously though - This whole debt ceiling thing is showing how twisted and sensationalized the news has gotten more than anything else.
The unwillingness to compromise that was such a hot topic during the last US election cycle has been replaced by 'the other party wants to end America as we know it'.
In the mean time, Americans still don't care and are getting even fatter.
Come back in ten years when Obamacare is actually on the books and the money is actually being spent to fund it.
Easy to compare 8 years to 4 years when the 8 years for Bush are over, and we actually see how much money he spent.
Because at the rate Obama and the Democrats are going, without cuts they'll make Bush look like a child when it comes to spending money.
Two points from the vantage of a fiscally conservative, socially liberal american taxpayer working in healthcare:
1) It is a symptom of the poisonous discourse here in the US that results in people comparing the cost of war to healthcare. Socially and morally the two are not even close considerations for society.
2) "Obamacare" as you call it is actually already having positive benefits in the hospital that I work at. Our hospital has doctors on fixed annual salaries and has always managed to work within Medicare / Medicaid reimbursement. The incentives in the recent legislation have actually spawned a series of collaborations with hospitals in adjacent states that are attempting to migrate their workflow / system to one that matches ours. The gains in the system are coming, but the people who have the most to lose from the changes (private practice conglomerates that overbill / do unnecessary procedures) are losing their sh*t.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames Fan, Ph.D. For This Useful Post:
