So when the repubs take the Oval office back..

[SMEGMA STENCH]

Do you think they'll lower all the taxes? Well, these awful "rich people" taxes, anyway. I like how they think that middle class people are "rich". Anyway, do you think we'll see some relief when the communists get thrown out?

[Forever_frost]

I hope so but the first step is lowering spending

[SMEGMA STENCH]

Yeah they have to lower that first, but does the prez actually have the power to raise/lower taxes? Won't the repub prez have to get the congress and the commie run senate to agree with it?

[jw33]

nothing will change.... just watch. Both sides are all happy as hell with each other behind closed doors.

[Slowhand]

1. They're not going to take back the oval office if the current crop of candidates is all they can muster. Completely laughable, at best. I really don't think they'd have to make a monumental effort to defeat Obama in '12, but they're in danger of rendering themselves irrelevant from the word 'go'.

2. Taxes aren't the issue, spending is. And spending probably isn't going to change by a meaningful amount. Sure, they'll cite budget cuts of $30 million here and there, but in the face of a $14 trillion deficit, that's just posturing that doesn't count for shit.

[ceyko]

At this point I careless what any of them says, I only care what they'll do.

[Broncojohnny]

2. Taxes aren't the issue, spending is. And spending probably isn't going to change by a meaningful amount. Sure, they'll cite budget cuts of $30 million here and there, but in the fact of a $14 trillion deficit, that's just posturing that doesn't count for shit.

This. The only meaningful cut you will see to spending will come at the end of the bayonet that is a credit downgrade from S&P or Moody's and the higher interest rates it puts on Treasurys. Once that happens, borrowing will cost more and they'll have to spend more on interest, they'll have to cut programs in order to pay higher interest costs. It makes sense if you think about it because each side can blame the other and no one loses face to the voters.

Once interest costs get high enough we'll face a situation of default. At that point again they will be forced to do something. Again they can blame each other. Again the voters will have no single group to blame. They'll be forced to cut entitlements to the old people. If we are lucky we might get a balanced budget amendment to the constitution out of the whole mess but I'm not holding my breath.

I just know that the sooner it happens, the better because shit needs to change.

[Vertnut]

Barry will spend $1 billion on his campaign, so it will be tough. I DO think the Reps will have control of the house and senate (the dems have a lot of seats to lose), so Barry will seem even more inept (if that's possible) than he is now.

[SMEGMA STENCH]

This. The only meaningful cut you will see to spending will come at the end of the bayonet that is a credit downgrade from S&P or Moody's and the higher interest rates it puts on Treasurys. Once that happens, borrowing will cost more and they'll have to spend more on interest, they'll have to cut programs in order to pay higher interest costs. It makes sense if you think about it because each side can blame the other and no one loses face to the voters.

Once interest costs get high enough we'll face a situation of default. At that point again they will be forced to do something. Again they can blame each other. Again the voters will have no single group to blame. They'll be forced to cut entitlements to the old people. If we are lucky we might get a balanced budget amendment to the constitution out of the whole mess but I'm not holding my breath.

I just know that the sooner it happens, the better because shit needs to change.

Ah.

[Broncojohnny]

I'm of the opinion that it should take a 2/3s vote of both houses to pass anything but a balanced budget. No debt unless there is a systemic risk to the country that most agree on. It will never happen though.

[YALE]

Put me down in the, "nothing will change fiscally," column. Republicans' collective inability to look at taxation is a direct mirror of Democrats pathological allergy to look at spending. We got a good look at their inability to work together when the budget talks broke down over planned parenthood funding, instead of the bigger discussion that should've been had about the overall debt crisis, in particular the discussion that needs to be had about the debt ceiling. We are so fucked right now.

[Lason]

Put me down in the, "nothing will change fiscally," column. Republicans' collective inability to look at taxation is a direct mirror of Democrats pathological allergy to look at spending. We got a good look at their inability to work together when the budget talks broke down over planned parenthood funding, instead of the bigger discussion that should've been had about the overall debt crisis, in particular the discussion that needs to be had about the debt ceiling. We are so fucked right now.

This sums up my opinion exactly. Both sides are at fault and until they can get past that letter next to their name and the political labels that have become lines drawn I'm the sand then we will continue on this downward spiral.


Sent from my Nexus One using Tapatalk

[Denny]

This. The only meaningful cut you will see to spending will come at the end of the bayonet that is a credit downgrade from S&P or Moody's and the higher interest rates it puts on Treasurys. Once that happens, borrowing will cost more and they'll have to spend more on interest, they'll have to cut programs in order to pay higher interest costs. It makes sense if you think about it because each side can blame the other and no one loses face to the voters.

Once interest costs get high enough we'll face a situation of default. At that point again they will be forced to do something. Again they can blame each other. Again the voters will have no single group to blame. They'll be forced to cut entitlements to the old people. If we are lucky we might get a balanced budget amendment to the constitution out of the whole mess but I'm not holding my breath.

I just know that the sooner it happens, the better because shit needs to change.

Exactly. The markets can/will have a bigger influence on spending than any politician in office. Sadly, these bad habits will only change at the hand of a reactionary measure (after it is too late), rather than avoidance.

[line-em-up]

...

I don't think things will change that much. The repubs may keep the lower taxes on the rich, so they can "create more jobs". The income gap between the rich and the rest of us will increase and our national debt will continue to spiral out of control. We can either vote for a socialist leadership that wants to spend us to death and redistribute the wealth and make it impossible to do business or vote republican and elect the people that believe the wealthy should control all of the marbles and continue to do nothing to eliminate the bankers and other cons from systematically and legally finding new ways to take our money. Either way, we lose.

I vote that we clean house and eliminate the career politicians. Then, they can only serve a limited term. The candidates should also have to pass an economics IQ test to run for office. I think many of them couldn't even balance their own checkbooks.

[SMEGMA STENCH]

Yeah we have career clowns for politicians. They had to go to clown school before they could even run for office.