• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Economy in U.S. Grows at 1.5% Rate

If "economic growth" is fueled by excessive debt, whether consumer debt or federal debt, then we don't need economic growth right now. We need to come to our sense as a nation and stop relying on systemic imprudence to maintain our economic expectations.


Consider my signature.
 
Last edited:
Yep, time to return to the economics of 2001. Time to do it all over again.... cut taxes, start wars, increase "defense" spending and run up the deficits. Yeah, there is a good alternative for ya.


How about we CUT spending? How about we PASS A BUDGET? How about we cut EVERY govt agency by at least 10%? How about we tighten the govt TAX AND SPEND belt? That, IMO, would be a starting point.

Anyone that believes that "taxing the rich will" bail the countries water is dumb as a rock. The amount we'd get wouldn't pay interest on our national debt for a week.
 
If "economic growth" is fueled by excessive debt, whether consumer debt or federal debt, then we don't need economic growth right now. We need to come to our sense as a nation and stop relying on systemic imprudence to maintain our economic expectations.


Consider my signature.

You seem to be operating under the false premise that imprudently cutting spending when the economy is weak actually reduces the debt.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443477104577548361202287278.html
 
Last edited:
You seem to be operating under the false premise that imprudently cutting spending when the economy is weak actually reduces the debt.

U.K. Stumbles, Fueling Austerity Debate - WSJ.com

Much like the imprudent assumption that one must work to provide housing, food and clothing for their family. If the libtards are in charge you simply raise taxes, borrow money and buy votes. When that gov't spending reaches 25% of GDP then things start to slow down. Yes they did!
 
Much like the imprudent assumption that one must work to provide housing, food and clothing for their family. If the libtards are in charge you simply raise taxes, borrow money and buy votes. When that gov't spending reaches 25% of GDP then things start to slow down. Yes they did!

And when the republitards are in charge you simply cut taxes (buy votes), borrow money, and spend more (buy more votes). The best situation often involves a split between the parties, e.g., Reagan and Clinton. Of course that takes compromise to work, and we know that's a dirty word in Republican circles.
 
How about we CUT spending? How about we PASS A BUDGET? How about we cut EVERY govt agency by at least 10%? How about we tighten the govt TAX AND SPEND belt? That, IMO, would be a starting point.

Anyone that believes that "taxing the rich will" bail the countries water is dumb as a rock. The amount we'd get wouldn't pay interest on our national debt for a week.

You aren't listening to what your candidate is saying? he is saying pretty much I told you: cut taxes, start wars, increase the "defense" budget, which will run up deficits even more. If your think the Regressives are serious about balancing the budget, I've got a bridge to sell you. In fact, the debt has been run up far more by Republicans than Dems, as you know.

BTW... any economist that has looked at the deficit seriously has suggested its a many faceted approach that includes tax hike and spending cuts (including cutting the largest discretionary spending line item: "defense") You can not 'spend cut' your way to balanced budget. If you aren't willing to raise taxes and cut the pentagon (as well as other things), you aren't serious about a balanced budget. Anyone that believes otherwise is, as you put, dumb as a rock.
 
Last edited:
You aren't listening to what your candidate is saying? he is saying pretty much I told you: cut taxes, start wars, increase the "defense" budget, which will run up deficits even more. If your think the Regressives are serious about balancing the budget, I've got a bridge to sell you. In fact, the debt has been run up far more by Republicans than Dems, as you know.

BTW... any economist that has looked at the deficit seriously has suggested its a many faceted approach that includes tax hike and spending cuts (including cutting the largest discretionary spending line item: "defense") You can not 'spend cut' your way to balanced budget. If you aren't willing to raise taxes and cut the pentagon (as well as other things), you aren't serious about a balanced budget. Anyone that believes otherwise is, as you put, dumb as a rock.



We have to start at some point in time. The govt spends too much. Every agency should at the very minimum cut their spending by 10-15%. Not just the Defense Department. EVERY agency should put in place a hiring freeze. EVERY govt agnecy that is redundant needs to go. We don't need 4-5 agencies that are doing the same thing - consolidation if what we need.

But the first thing we need to do is PASS A BUDGET. 3years and no budget! Unacceptable!

I will be voting for Romney because I know what we have in the present occupant of the WH and he can't even get a budget passed in almost 4 years! So IMO, it's time to move "forward" and "change" our leadership.
 
Back
Top Bottom