All the taker's dependent on the taxpayer for their living, say that!

Austerity is the unavoidable consequence of irresponsibility!

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's and future generation's money" Margaret Thatcher, paraphrased.

Depends on the time interval over which the change is effected, too.

Agreed: The deficit is a long term problem, We still have not paid for the tax cuts and military spending of the 80's.

The economy is a shorter term problem. The economy should take priority.
A stronger economy makes paying down the deficit easier. Ironically it is when the economy is weak that so many focus on the deficit. Or maybe it is because a D is in the house?

Nor have we paid for LBJ's "Great Society."

__________________
2001 SLK 320 six speed manual
2014 Porsche Cayenne six speed manual

Annoy a Liberal, Read the Constitution

Pick "C" and win!

__________________

1980 300TD-China Blue/Blue MBTex-2nd Owner, 107K (Alt Blau) OBK #15
'06 Chevy Tahoe Z71 (for the wife & 4 kids, current mule) '03 Honda Odyssey (son #1's ride, reluctantly) '99 GMC Suburban (255K+ miles, semi-retired mule) 21' SeaRay Seville (summer escape pod)

I say we elect both of them. Then nothing will get done, which will likely be better for all of us.

__________________
On some nights I still believe that a car with the fuel gauge on empty can run about fifty more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. - HST

1983 300SD - 305000
1984 Toyota Landcruiser - 190000
1994 GMC Jimmy - 203000

https://media.giphy.com/media/X3nnss8PAj5aU/giphy.gif

There was once a plan to do that. The framers wanted the VP to be the 2nd most voted for person. There were issues related to that and in the end, given that the VP had only 1 official duty, the minds at the time decided that the job was longer suitable for the 2nd most popular vote recipient, and instead should go to the running mate of the winning president. That change was the 12th Amendment.

A few years later Congress tried to abolish the office of the VP but it was defeated by the Senate.

Ever since then, we’ve gotten people like Spiro Agnew, Dan Quayle, Joe Biden with the rare Dick Cheney for the office.

In the end it appears that enough nothing gets done with just 1 party in office.

Gridlock is just fine by me!

__________________

1980 300TD-China Blue/Blue MBTex-2nd Owner, 107K (Alt Blau) OBK #15
'06 Chevy Tahoe Z71 (for the wife & 4 kids, current mule) '03 Honda Odyssey (son #1's ride, reluctantly) '99 GMC Suburban (255K+ miles, semi-retired mule) 21' SeaRay Seville (summer escape pod)

1. I never have said that we should not control the deficit. The deficit and economy are on different timelines. Taking drastic measures to reduce the deficit would actually hurt the economy. The deficit and market are not inversely proportional. Both have been going up the past several years.

2. You don't know what I believe in.

3. "Also, INCREASING REVENUE to the government decreases the deficit."
No chit! so don't vote for politicians that buy your vote with false promises
of lower taxes without increasing the deficit.

The truth is everyone will have to pay more and get less to reduce the deficit. Not exactly the message that wins elections.

That's not what you originally said. YOU said that ANYTHING that would decrease the deficit is BAD. My contention is that a booming economy, resulting in more tax revenue would decrease the deficit, and I can't understand how that is BAD.

The deficit and economy are not REALLY on different timelines. If we had elected officials that were worth as much as a bucket of warm chit, they would NOT spend more than they take in. THAT is why we have a deficit, because they spend MORE of OUR money than they take in. When they get in trouble then they want to demand MORE of our money rather than having us take our lumps to fix it.

__________________
2001 SLK 320 six speed manual
2014 Porsche Cayenne six speed manual

Annoy a Liberal, Read the Constitution

Not at all, I said that anything we do to decrease the deficit will hurt the economy short term. (Raising taxes or decreasing spending) We 1st need a healthy economy then we can tackle the deficit. The problem is we never do because when the economy is booming no one wants to slow the party down and reduce the deficit. Yes, when the economy is hot reducing the deficit will cool it down. We all want a booming economy but you need to try and understand that if the gov cut spending it would slow the economy!

Completely different timelines. The deficit has been going up for decades the economy has had multiple ups and downs during that time.

You only want to blame spending but it is a revenue/spending problem.

Nobody has been demanding more of your money! Top marginal income tax rates were over 80% now at 35%

You responded to your own issue. If the economy were to start to boom (fat chance) the deficit COULD decrease if the politicians will let it, and there would be no down side.

__________________
2001 SLK 320 six speed manual
2014 Porsche Cayenne six speed manual

Annoy a Liberal, Read the Constitution

Not an economist but as I understand it thats only so up to the point when the markets decide against the US government on account of it's unpayable debt, at which point the issue flips and the deficit becomes the only problem.

- Peter.

__________________
2021 Chevrolet Spark
Formerly...
2000 GMC Sonoma
1981 240D 4spd stick. 347000 miles. Deceased Feb 14 2021
2002 Kia Rio. Worst crap on four wheels
1981 240D 4spd stick. 389000 miles.
1984 123 200
1979 116 280S
1972 Cadillac Sedan DeVille
1971 108 280S

And that's why the government has to GET OUT OF THE WAY!

__________________
2001 SLK 320 six speed manual
2014 Porsche Cayenne six speed manual

Annoy a Liberal, Read the Constitution

That is not the solution. Gov got out of the way and let banks be run like hedge funds.

We need good governance not no governance.