Of course it wouldn't solve the problem, just like changing the payout calculations for social security wouldnt' solve the problem, or cutting discretionary spending budgets etc.
Then why bother? Why this controversy?
well the obvious would be economic growth. Governments revenue goes down and spending goes up during a recession. Shocking I know? Slashing budgets sure as hell won't solve our core problem which is high unemployment. In fact these fiscal cliffs and debt ceiling showdowns have if anything made the situation worse.
But there is no economic growth, just increasing debt. More rules and regulations, higher taxes and labor mean businesses will close down or leave. Why would any inte;lliegent person want to be part of a group that is over $16,000,000,000,000.00 in debt, and with no end in sight. Are you relying on BHO to have a plan?
That's about as meaningful as say you're 800,000 dollars in debt because of the food you're going to eat for the rest of your life. Meaningless statstic.
Yes, I do have to be sure I have enough income to keep me and my family in food, clothing and shelter for the rest of my life. Do you find that odd?
Yes, the reason for the recession is Social Security and Medicare which magically was introduced in 2008.
Then perhaps they should be scrapped if the country can't afford them.
He does submit budgets but a bill outlawing puppy abuse couldn't pass in this Congress.
Or the Senate. The flopeared greenhorn's budget was rejected by everyone, 100% of the commons and 100% of the Senate. But despite these failures, and his defiance of the Constitution, a majority of the American electorate still love him and in the ongoing spirit of solidarity, will blames his ineptness on George Bush.
President Obama's budget suffered a second embarrassing defeat Wednesday, when senators voted 99-0 to reject it.
Coupled with the House's rejection in March, 414-0, that means Mr. Obama's budget has failed to win a single vote in support this year.