So Person A burns your house down and takes all your money Person B comes along and tries to rebuild the house with very limited resources. You blame person B that the house was burned to the ground in the first place given the situation was initially caused by person A? On top of that you whine when it is difficult to rebuild the house with limited resources. Now that is truly nice spin.
It seemed like the point is that you want to punch someone because you're tired of talking about it. Ed O.
Like I said, sick and tired of bitching, finger pointing and posturing. Talk about solutions or finding middle ground and I'm all sunshine and daisies.
I think a lot of us have the basis for a solution: cut spending dramatically. It's not a matter of finding a solution, seemingly. It's finding one that you agree with so you don't want to punch someone Ed O.
The analogy I have heard to the economy is that the basement is flooded and the roof is on fire. You are going to have to add more water to put out the fire, because if you get rid of the water first, the house will burn down.
FTFY How anybody can not put some blame on Obama for doubling the deficit and not even having a fucking budget for 2 years running is what is wrong with politics. Luckily, it's not the true believers like you who are over the guy. He'll have his 40% based on the tax structure alone (and the handout people, like you), but the other 60% are trending against him.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148487/Republican-Candidate-Extends-Lead-Obama.aspx If Obama's plan is to run against Bush, he'll lose in a landslide.
What happened to the bus being driven into the ditch, and putting the GOP in the back of the bus? So many analogies with our genius President. I'll just go back to pulling off my band-aid and eating my peas...
Yep, I get that spending cuts are key. And it's part of the solution for sure. I'm asking you to take the next next and consider that maybe the tax system isn't perfect and perhaps we can raise revenue in ways that are smart, fair and won't hurt business. Keep as much of the part that's important to you that you can, but acknowledge that "the other side" may also have valid points worth considering and that there might be a place to meet in the middle. Let's listen to the other side, see what has value and might be workable. Let's focus on those things and try to build some consensus. We're all a whole lot better off doing that than we are sitting around trying to show how "our side" is smart and "their side" is dumb.
And what if one fundamentally disagrees with raising government revenue? What if one believes that the current amount of revenue is high enough to support what a basic and functional government is actually designed for? Should that person still try to figure out a way to increase government revenue to continue supporting what has turned into a bloated, inefficient blob?
As a starter, you focus in a proactive and productive way about what cuts make sense. Try listening to the other side to see what's really most important to them and cut the things least important to both sides. As far as the revenue side, do people really think tax system is perfect and should be left as it is? I'm not talking about a full repeal of the Bush tax cuts or elimination of ALL loopholes/deductions. Isn't it worth both parties taking a good look at it and seeing if changes can be made that will help stabilize the budget without crippling the economy? All I'm saying is it's fine (actually good) to stick to your beliefs, but we'll all be a whole lot better off doing that AND listening to the opposition. Let's see where we can meet in the middle. Wholesale discarding the opposing view doesn't get us any where. [And anyway, where the heck have all the moderates gone? Are they just hiding from all the crap slinging? I miss 'em. ]
