Tax cuts should end. (Did that get your attention?)

[nathanm]

So we are back to where we were when we had our brief group hug...limit revenue to 21% of GDP AND limit spending to 21% of GDP and viola, a balanced budget.

Limiting revenue does nothing to balance the budget. As I said before, it's like being asked to come up with a deficit reduction plan and making spaghetti instead.

I guess we could become California writ large if we wanted to, but it's a dumb idea. Conservatives like to say that states are like little laboratories where we can experiment with different policies and see what works. Revenue limiting is a failed policy. Why would we want to expand its application?

I'm not saying there shouldn't be guidelines. We should seek to pay as we go in normal economic times. An arbitrary cap on revenues doesn't advance that cause one whit, though.

As an aside, I find it rather annoying that we all seem to agree that the deficit needs to come down, even if we disagree on the particulars of timing, but some have decided to tack on this extra thing about revenue. It strikes me as being like earmarks being attached to unrelated bills in Congress, which is again something we all agree is stupid. Yet here it is, rearing its ugly head in this discussion.

Edited to add: And we should all keep in mind that our largest present problem regarding the deficit is the economy. Federal revenues are off something over $400 billion since 2007. Combine that with the continued war expenses and increased social spending (UE, food stamps, etc.) and that's the vast majority of the deficit.

[Conan71]

Hey President Obama and the Democrat-controlled legislative branch has had every opportunity to cut military spending the last two years.

[Hoss]

Hey President Obama and the Democrat-controlled legislative branch has had every opportunity to cut military spending the last two years.

And so did President Bush and his Republican controlled all three branches the previous six.  What's your point?

[Conan71]

And so did President Bush and his Republican controlled all three branches the previous six.  What's your point?

Point being, that was one of the messages President Obama was resoundingly elected upon and a way he differentiated himself from "McSame".

Am I wrong?  He's had two years to do some truly revolutionary stuff, don't hide behind "he's not had enough time yet"

[Hoss]

Point being, that was one of the messages President Obama was resoundingly elected upon and a way he differentiated himself from "McSame".

Am I wrong?  He's had two years to do some truly revolutionary stuff, don't hide behind "he's not had enough time yet"

Never said that.  I was merely pointing out that in six years the Rs had control of the executive and legislative, they did nothing.

Oh, but I forgot about that 'Mission Accomplished' crap and everything.  Guess that makes it all better.

And most of that 'doing nothing' came from the Republicans threatening the filibuster more in that congress then ever before.  So don't try and hide behind the 'well, the dems have both houses'.  Senate didn't have enough for the super-majority.

[Red Arrow]

And so did President Bush and his Republican controlled all three branches the previous six.  What's your point?

I believe that is why the Republicans got trounced in 2008.  The Hope and Change party was going to save us. 

[Conan71]

Never said that.  I was merely pointing out that in six years the Rs had control of the executive and legislative, they did nothing.

Oh, but I forgot about that 'Mission Accomplished' crap and everything.  Guess that makes it all better.

And most of that 'doing nothing' came from the Republicans threatening the filibuster more in that congress then ever before.  So don't try and hide behind the 'well, the dems have both houses'.  Senate didn't have enough for the super-majority.

Look, it wasn't in the mission of Republicans to shaft the MIC.  We all know that.  In spite of supposed fillibuster power, the Dems got some of the most controversial legislation ever proposed passed.  Am I wrong?

[Hoss]

Look, it wasn't in the mission of Republicans to shaft the MIC.  We all know that.  In spite of supposed fillibuster power, the Dems got some of the most controversial legislation ever proposed passed.  Am I wrong?

No, you're not.  But the Repubs felt as if MIC spending was the one thing they needed to hold on to at all costs, because no way in hell were they going to admit to the American public that the war in Iraq was a mistake.  Even when most of us know now that it is.

Am I an opponent of the war?  Yes.  The Iraq war.  Was then and am still.  We took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and lost Bin Laden because of it.  All because W Bush wanted to get the revenge for that which his father should have done in 1990.

[Red Arrow]

I'll agree we lost sight of what should have happened in Afghanistan but I find it difficult to believe the world would be a better place with Saddam Hussein still in charge of Iraq.  I worked with a guy (Mike) in the late 80s whose parents sent him to the US from Iraq because of Mike's disagreement with the SH government.  Saddam was not a nice person.

[Conan71]

One of two things happened in Iraq: Either Bill Clinton was duped by the same intel Bush ll was (someone cue the Larry King interview w/ Clinton on the eve of Iraq II) or Hussein was a crazy liar about Iraq's capabilities.

In hindsight, Saddam on a short leash made a lot of sense. Everyone thought it would be a six week milk run. If it had been GWB would be a genius. As it was it did not play out that way. As far as a Mudochian war for oil, apparently we are not benefitting fom Iraq oil 8 years later.

[heironymouspasparagus]

There are no really 'nice' governments out there.  SH was a cheesy little tin-horn dictator and maybe our little corner of the world is better.  Maybe because instead of one Saddam Hussein, we created 100 of them in that area of the world.  Plus put the Iran type Muslims in power.  Yeah, that was well thought out.  Not.

[heironymouspasparagus]

There were WMD at one time - chemical warfare equipment and supplies.  And we are the ones who put them there, giving them to Saddam to attack Iran with.