Raising taxes just a little bit won't help. WHY CAN'T PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THIS COUNTRY NEEDS SERIOUS SPENDING CUTS?

These certainly don't count as 'serious' or nearly enough, but here are some of Obama's latest cuts offered in his most recent proposal.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11798889/...fered.html

I wouldn't exactly call it a "long list" of cuts as the article does (which probably tells all we need to know about the article's bias) but three criticisms:

1) In total it amounts to $1.1 billion, an absurdly low number
2) Several of the items are being cut because they have accomplished their goal, which means they should be eliminated as a matter of course, not counted as cuts
3) Several of them are cuts to future increases, not actually cuts to programs, like increasing the price of something from $3 to $5 and then offering it on "sale" for $4

I really don't think either side has a clue what to do.

Tome there are two serious options. Both will cause great pain.
1 go back to Clinton taxes and spending, both adjusted for inflation. Know it's complicated, but at least it's a start.
2 go blacktop bush policies in 06 and 07. Taxes and spending weren't that far off, and with reduced war spending perhaps that would be less painful than going all the way back to Clinton years.

Averting the fiscal cliff should be the beginning of the process. We must address spending long term but for the short term more stimulus is in order.

Get the spending cuts in writing.

We need to get the economy back then worry about spending cuts.

(12-22-2012 08:47 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Averting the fiscal cliff should be the beginning of the process. We must address spending long term but for the short term more stimulus is in order.

"Stimulus" isn't working. We are borrowing 10% of GDP and dumping it into the economy annually, and getting back 2% growth. If "stimulus" were working we'd be getting white-hot growth long before now. We can't keep it up, or we'll run out of somebody else's money. We can't stop, or even that meager growth will go into the tank. We are on an inescapable path to meltdown unless we make fundamental change.

We are getting Keynesian multipliers in the range of 1.25 to 1.5. That sucks. We should be getting 5.0, maybe 3.0 minimum, to do any good. But to get the multipliers up to that range we have to be making what we consume here, instead of making it overseas and just doing retail and service here. Keynes acknowledged that if you neglected supply long enough, then eventually demand stimulus would lose its kick. We've been doing incessant demand stimulus for 40 years. We are the largest importer in the world, because demand has grown more than supply, and we are the largest debtor in the world, because demand has grown faster than our ability to pay for it.

If we could get larger multipliers, then we could stimulate more growth with less spending. But that takes doing something for the supply side. And that means real supply-side help, not the "trickle down" that republicans try to foist off as supply-side. Ross Perot had some good ideas in this regard, but he was wrong about NAFTA.

As I see it, we have to do three things:
1) Balance the budget
2) Make the US a more competitive place to do business, so investment will come here instead of moving offshore, thereby raising the multiplier
3) Provide a comprehensive safety net that functions to put a floor on how far people can fall instead of a ceiling on how far they can climb

It can be done, but not by republicans or democrats.

First thing is we DON'T need new spending. Things like another idiotic stimulus.

Nor, and this seems popular lately, even around here surprisingly, turning our schools into armed fortresses. Can't afford it, nor is it even needed.

(12-22-2012 08:47 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Averting the fiscal cliff should be the beginning of the process. We must address spending long term but for the short term more stimulus is in order.

Stimulus? Continue borrowing money and then spending our way to prosperity? It hasn't worked and you want to do more of what isn't working? Go ahead, dig in your heels and your response will just prove how insane you really are.
I try to be polite here, but people who share your view are running our country into the ground.

(12-22-2012 08:47 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Averting the fiscal cliff should be the beginning of the process.

Why? There is no problem.

Quote:We must address spending long term but for the short term more stimulus is in order.

Completely wrong. As usual.

Infrastructure needs to be re-built. More money.

(12-23-2012 05:32 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Infrastructure needs to be re-built. More money.

Isn't that what a large portion of the first stimulus was for?

(12-22-2012 10:45 AM)niucob86 Wrote:  

(12-22-2012 08:47 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Averting the fiscal cliff should be the beginning of the process. We must address spending long term but for the short term more stimulus is in order.

Stimulus? Continue borrowing money and then spending our way to prosperity? It hasn't worked and you want to do more of what isn't working? Go ahead, dig in your heels and your response will just prove how insane you really are.
I try to be polite here, but people who share your view are running our country into the ground.

Well, we COULD lt our bridges fall and let our roads rot. I am sure that will be great for business though since they need those to get their products to market.

(12-23-2012 07:32 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(12-22-2012 10:45 AM)niucob86 Wrote:  

(12-22-2012 08:47 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Averting the fiscal cliff should be the beginning of the process. We must address spending long term but for the short term more stimulus is in order.

Stimulus? Continue borrowing money and then spending our way to prosperity? It hasn't worked and you want to do more of what isn't working? Go ahead, dig in your heels and your response will just prove how insane you really are.
I try to be polite here, but people who share your view are running our country into the ground.

Well, we COULD lt our bridges fall and let our roads rot. I am sure that will be great for business though since they need those to get their products to market.

Quit being dramatic. Try logic and reason instead.

(12-23-2012 06:27 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-23-2012 05:32 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Infrastructure needs to be re-built. More money.

Isn't that what a large portion of the first stimulus was for?

Not really. Most of that money went to support state and local budgets.

(12-23-2012 10:24 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(12-23-2012 06:27 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-23-2012 05:32 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Infrastructure needs to be re-built. More money.

Isn't that what a large portion of the first stimulus was for?

Not really. Most of that money went to support state and local budgets.

That is how Texass kept from going into debt. But truth be told, most of it went to tax cuts.