The big jump between 08 and 09 was stimulus spending, to prevent a depression.
But the Republicans would have loved for that to happen under a Democrat administration, wouldn't they?
Since then, spending has leveled off.
Did you miss the part where I said let the tax cuts that caused this mess expire and get rid of the loopholes? Except I called them "Tax Breaks".
Ending the trillion dollar wars would also immensely.
1.5 Trillion a year in deficits and you think they are doing a good job and moving in the right direction and levelling off spending? 3 trillion in '08 versus 3.8 in '11 is levelling off? That's a 25% increase in four years. And, the costs of the new scam healthcare program haven't even kicked in.
Their has been roughly $1T in lost revenue over the last three years and $4.5T in deficit spending. Not a good track record for anyone to stand on.
Rand Paul has a pretty good list to start with to get about $500B this year that hits the sacred cows of both sides without raising taxes. Do that and get the economy rolling again and the gap can close pretty quickly. Instead of worrying about raising the tax rates why not get rid of the loopholes (another promise that Obama didn't keep) and either lower the rate or at least leave it alone so that businesses and people can plan. Or, even better, institute the fairtax.
"There is a spending problem not a revenue problem. Republicans did a bad job minding the store for the first six years of the century and the Democrats opened the flood gates, especially when they were in charge of it all."
So say the Republicans, and you parrot them nicely. But...
This actually show spending leveling off under the Dems.
Since spending has leveled off, revenues falling must account for the deficit.
Show me the 1.5 trillion you wish to cut, exactly.
There is a spending problem not a revenue problem. Republicans did a bad job minding the store for the first six years of the century and the Democrats opened the flood gates, especially when they were in charge of it all.
Give me the Fairtax, which will tax the rich at an equal percentage so there are not loopholes and the poor will pay nothing. Base the tax code on consumption, not investment and savings.
I would agree to forego my social security that I have been paying into if I could stop my federal contributions and invest the same amount myself, otherwise I want the 12.5% of my pay that the government has been borrowing from me that I will get a 1-2% return on if I am lucky when I retire.
There was no deficit before the Bush/Republican tax cuts and wars.
The whole national debt should have been paid off by now.
And now, the Republicans are trying to bribe their way into office with more unsustainable tax cuts.
As I've said on here before, end the wars, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, drug; let the tax cuts expire.
Then, as the Republicans rightly say, get rid of all of the tax breaks and a bunch of useless spending.
Unfortunately, nobody has the 'nads to do all of this.
But try to take away the Social Security that I have paid into all of my life and you are out of here.
Wow. That's convincing. Thanks. For a minute there, I thought I was right.
"Tax the rich and the deficit goes away"
Tax the rich and the deficit goes away.
rand and ryan-our nightmares have become reality
Conservative punk sucks, though.
Jack is too punk rock to be a puppet.
Gadsen - is FOX News bombing Libya?
I think Jack is too comfortable being on Fau News.
America’s conservative media is in controlled by Neoconsevatives, who’s only concern is ratings, money and prolonging the Anti-Islamic crusade in the Middle East and continued WAR. Rupert Murdoch, sheeple herder and puppet master controls the mouths of Beck, Hannity and O’Reilly, Fox News. Murdoch & Koch Bros. hijacked the Tea Party movement to make the Republican Party into what they want it to be.
Maybe Jack wants to replace Glenn Beck?
The constitution is a political document. You can't read it, let alone interpret it, without politicizing it. It'd be like not wanting to bring religion into biblical interpretation.
Keep up the good work Jack! I always look forward to your insights and I wish you all the best!
I'm afraid your being a bit duplicitous here, Jack.
You only gave us a small quote from Levin's larger monologue, and using only the bit where Levin states "“I don’t believe in politicizing the Constitution. I believe the Constitution is the rock of this society. So all this talk about the attacks on Libya are unconstitutional because we don’t have a declaration of war, that’s ridiculous. That’s absolutely ridiculous.”
Levin is right. It is absolutely ridiculous when one considers that the president is the commander-in-chief, making him responsible for protecting the country from harm, and giving him the right to order US forces to initiate warfare on his command authority. To deny this fundamental presidential responsibility is to deny reality.
Here is a war game scenario for you, Jack:
Tomorrow morning, at three am, US Space Warfare systems detect multiple ICBM launches from China. Early indications indicate the North American continent as probable target, based on initial track guidance.
Does the president:
A. Run with the nuclear football for AF1, order a potential immediate counterstrike with re-callable Tomahawk missiles using sea based and airborne "alert-five" assets, and put our few remaining fixed ICBM assets on line for immediate launch.
B. Go back to bed and hope for the best.
C. Call his Chief of Staff to schedule a meeting with Harry Reid and John Boehner to discuss congress convening immediately for a vote to declare war.
If you stick with your strict constructionist view, you won't need to worry about the constitution, or the republic for that matter, because both will be vaporized within the next hour.
But there's no imminent threat from Libya you say? I agree. But the president IS the national command authority for the US military at all times. Congress can vote to de-fund the attacks on Libya. They can unanimously call for a vote to impeach the president and have him removed from office.
Congress cannot directly, immediately order troops into battle without the consent of the commander-in-chief. The commander-in-chief can take such unilateral action without the immediate consent of congress.
So, as Levin says, "all this talk about the attacks on Libya are unconstitutional because we don’t have a declaration of war, that’s ridiculous." Because the president has national command authority to do just that, and the congress has the ability to thwart on going military interventions.
BUT BUT BUT BUT
GOOD OLD DAYS, GODDAMMIT!
GOOD OLD DAYS!!!!
Congress has the authority to "regulate commerce . . . among the several states," and that's exactly what's being done with the mandate.
Your view of strict constructionism was demolished, not recently by the Health Care Act, but in the early days of the republic (See Marbury v. Madison (1803)). Moreover, the theory is internally inconsistent because nowhere in the Constitution does it provide that the document should be "strictly constructed," etc.
Like all good compromises (understand the framers were not all cut from the same cloth), the Constitution is intentionally vague so that differences could be worked out politically over the ages.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2016,
Charleston City Paper