Register to leave a comment, or log in if you already have an account
DH’s 1:31 is exactly the reason I’m super annoyed with Obama. instead of governing, he is more concerned about 2012 re-election. 1 term limit (ie maybe extend it to 6 yrs) would’ve yielded a take no prisoner President vs this version that looks indecisive, timid.
that said though, I dont think Palin/McCain would’ve done any better. When Politics is one’s career or aspires to it, we expect to get screwed by these career politicians
I think that corporate-government analogies are not too useful, but since you went there, how many companies have found success only though cost cutting while refusing to consider revenue generation?
My point is that if it’s not possible to raise revenues (taxes), then you have to cut costs.
Furthering the analogy, the taxpayer will be a hell of a lot more upset than would a corporate customer who has had a price raised on him. The latter can pass it along. The taxpayer cannot.
CGar, basically lurking today, as have a lot to do, and not particularly in the mood to be called a moron today, by Dave, Benson, and the conservative set.
Just found the numbers, but not very user friendly:
Total increase in spending from 2007-09 = $789Bn. Largest items in that: “Commerce” (presumably bailouts) = $296Bn, something categorized as “income security” (?) = $167Bn, health and medicare = $122Bn, defense $110Bn, social security = $97Bn.
So the bailouts were a large factor but less than 40% of the increase.
“Meaning higher taxes for everyone? When is it going to stop??? If you don’t have the income to support your lifestyle, you alter your lifestyle. Same thing applies to corporations and should also apply to the government.”
I’m just trying to return the country to the type of liberal socialism we had under Eisenhower, Nixon, Regan, and Bush I 🙂
I think that corporate-government analogies are not too useful, but since you went there, how many companies have found success only though cost cutting while refusing to consider revenue generation?
“And is this STILL BUSH’s PROBLEM???? NO. It’s Obama’s problem.
If he can’t or won’t fix it (spending) he’s an uneffective president. Remember, all the Democrats voted to invade Iraq as well, not just the Republicans”
I agree – he tried too hard to be a bipartisan president instead of sticking by his ideals and telling everyone to fuck off.
i’m not arguing FOR obama – he’s been an absolute waste.
DH’s 1:31 is exactly the reason I’m super annoyed with Obama. instead of governing, he is more concerned about 2012 re-election. 1 term limit (ie maybe extend it to 6 yrs) would’ve yielded a take no prisoner President vs this version that looks indecisive, timid.
that said though, I dont think Palin/McCain would’ve done any better. When Politics is one’s career or aspires to it, we expect to get screwed by these career politicians
I think that corporate-government analogies are not too useful, but since you went there, how many companies have found success only though cost cutting while refusing to consider revenue generation?
My point is that if it’s not possible to raise revenues (taxes), then you have to cut costs.
Furthering the analogy, the taxpayer will be a hell of a lot more upset than would a corporate customer who has had a price raised on him. The latter can pass it along. The taxpayer cannot.
CGar, basically lurking today, as have a lot to do, and not particularly in the mood to be called a moron today, by Dave, Benson, and the conservative set.
BTW, go DH, you are making some great points.
Just found the numbers, but not very user friendly:
Total increase in spending from 2007-09 = $789Bn. Largest items in that: “Commerce” (presumably bailouts) = $296Bn, something categorized as “income security” (?) = $167Bn, health and medicare = $122Bn, defense $110Bn, social security = $97Bn.
So the bailouts were a large factor but less than 40% of the increase.
“Meaning higher taxes for everyone? When is it going to stop??? If you don’t have the income to support your lifestyle, you alter your lifestyle. Same thing applies to corporations and should also apply to the government.”
I’m just trying to return the country to the type of liberal socialism we had under Eisenhower, Nixon, Regan, and Bush I 🙂
I think that corporate-government analogies are not too useful, but since you went there, how many companies have found success only though cost cutting while refusing to consider revenue generation?
“I never said cutting one was better”
Don’t you know from his posts by now that dave prefers uncut???
outsource governing to China. we can ask for our freedoms after they solve our deficit issues, build new roads, electric grids, green energy,…..
By donatella on April 25, 2011 1:28 PM
Bimbo? Bimbo?
The word does carry with it certain positive attributes, dona.
“And is this STILL BUSH’s PROBLEM???? NO. It’s Obama’s problem.
If he can’t or won’t fix it (spending) he’s an uneffective president. Remember, all the Democrats voted to invade Iraq as well, not just the Republicans”
I agree – he tried too hard to be a bipartisan president instead of sticking by his ideals and telling everyone to fuck off.
i’m not arguing FOR obama – he’s been an absolute waste.