I agree, gentlemen. I just don't think that Mr. Obama's 1:4 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases (it's actually not even that good in that it also includes more stimulus spending) could constitute "balance" by anybody's definition.
Russ, were on schedule to spend 40-45 trillion over the next 10 years and those idiots on that "super committee" couldn't find 1.2 trillion in deficit reduction between 'em. Nope, not a lot of faith in any of 'em.
9 comments:
Probably the best thing the President has said all year.
The problem is the definition of balanced. I suspect Democrats and republicans do not agree on what is a balanced approach.
I agree, gentlemen. I just don't think that Mr. Obama's 1:4 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases (it's actually not even that good in that it also includes more stimulus spending) could constitute "balance" by anybody's definition.
Come on folks....does it really matter....do you actually have a bit of faith in any of them.....can you put a sheet of psper between any of them.....
Russ, were on schedule to spend 40-45 trillion over the next 10 years and those idiots on that "super committee" couldn't find 1.2 trillion in deficit reduction between 'em. Nope, not a lot of faith in any of 'em.
... By which the Prez means all but his own. IE; democrat statism on steroids. As opposed to rEpublican statism.
There's the paper. Statism on steroids versus statism.
Nuff said?
When the President uttered this, I literally laughed.
It all depends on your definition of balanced -- which I am not sure that Obama or the republicans have given us.
After all, I can balance a pound of gold with an ounce of sand if I place the fulcrum in the right place.
And, it is quite likely the more things change the more they will stay the same.
Ciciero (sp?) Was concerned about these things in 55 BC, Rome.
Post a Comment