03-01-2011, 12:09 AM
Ted King wrote:
I mentioned about the $100 billion in spending cuts because that is what the Republicans said they would do. I actually think that spending cuts now are a bad idea. We are not safely out of the danger caused by the near depression-level collapse of the economic system. We need more stimulus for a couple of more years - even at the cost of increasing the debt. I am convinced by those economists who say that over the long run the greater economic activity now will lead to increased economic activity in the future that will more than make up for the cost of the additional stimulus.
I know I'm being a little snide here but are you really stating that "voodoo economics" actually works????
Ted King wrote:
The cynical side of me suspects that many Republicans know that reduced spending will prolong the negative effects of the near economic collapse, which will reduce the chances of Obama getting reelected in 2012.
Politics, Republicans and Elections.... and your cynical... come on now.
Ted King wrote:
But once the economy isn't struggling so badly, I would agree that getting the budget deficit down much smaller or eliminating it would be a good idea. If it were up to me and most liberals, we'd do most of the balancing by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
Yes and I would agree with you.
Ted King wrote:
But I understand that we are a pluralistic society where many people think that the balancing should be done entirely by spending cuts.
Just for the record I would consider this to be an act of stupidity,
Ted King wrote:
The logical compromise then is to balance the budget by a combination of both spending cuts and raising taxes - hopefully primarily on the wealthiest. But that would require Republicans to, you know, actually compromise with Democrats with respect to taxes.
I will only ask at what point do "poor" people need to contribute?