Small change
There may be fewer people this morning who are obsessed with Hillary raising taxes or Huckabee speaking in "tongues" during his State of the Union address much less with whether Romney wears funny underwear. Stupid or not, it's the economy.
The Dow might regain some or all of this morning's losses; It looks that way now, but the debt keeps ballooning and there is speculation that we may end the year with something approaching 2004's $413,000,000,000 record. That doesn't bode well for Bush's replacement and it doesn't bode well for us or our children or their children's children. Universal health care has a millstone around its neck before it's even been born and with Bush's endless war, our next president isn't going to have a lot of options.
True, Clinton took office with a huge debt and left with a surplus, but he wasn't saddled with a war without end or the Bush tax cuts. So no matter who we compromise on in November, he or she isn't going to be able to push through a $60 billion much less $110 billion health care program with ease and Guiliani's "biggest tax cut in American History" promise will likely meet the same fate as Bush the Elder's "read my lips, no new taxes."
It's very easy to say "change." It's harder to define it and hardest of all to do it.
The Dow might regain some or all of this morning's losses; It looks that way now, but the debt keeps ballooning and there is speculation that we may end the year with something approaching 2004's $413,000,000,000 record. That doesn't bode well for Bush's replacement and it doesn't bode well for us or our children or their children's children. Universal health care has a millstone around its neck before it's even been born and with Bush's endless war, our next president isn't going to have a lot of options.
True, Clinton took office with a huge debt and left with a surplus, but he wasn't saddled with a war without end or the Bush tax cuts. So no matter who we compromise on in November, he or she isn't going to be able to push through a $60 billion much less $110 billion health care program with ease and Guiliani's "biggest tax cut in American History" promise will likely meet the same fate as Bush the Elder's "read my lips, no new taxes."
It's very easy to say "change." It's harder to define it and hardest of all to do it.
Labels: economy
posted by Libby Spencer at 10:31 AM
5 Comments:
if these guys want any of these tax cuts or social programs there is a very easy way to do it. simply cut other programs / dpeartments/ expenditures. none of them except ron paul are willing to do this.
would democrats rather have a department of education or health care for little kids?
I have lost all faith that what Ron says is what Ron really is. I think he's a bigot and one of the aspects of the primitive America he wants to return to is the subjugation or elimination of minorities.
Anybody can say anything or promise anything, but the bottom line is that no president has the power to bring about the ultra-minimalist kind of experimental government he talks about and the country simply isn't going to accept a return to the 19th century either with the resulting poverty, massive crime and the kind of police state required to control it. How many departments would you have to cut to pay off a 2 trillion dollar war?
that's the whole idea. you don't start wars.
" the resulting poverty, massive crime and the kind of police state"
as opposed to now? we have like 30 million living below the pverty line, jails full with perverts and rapists running free, and a massive government surveillence program more or less tolerated by the sheep like masses.
all an "ultra minimalist" governmetn wuld do would give us more of our own money back. I dno't see how our lives would be WORSE if we didn't have na overseas empire, massive beuaorcracy, and huge subsidies for things we don't use.
what do they DO in washington?
I agree about the overseas empire and all that, but I don't think we are better off without public education, social security and the like.
30% below the poverty line is much better than it used to be and so are crime levels.
But I'm not arguing against smaller, less intrusive government, but against extremism in smaller government. Besides, I no longer trust Ron. I suspect his vision of America includes a smaller, less intrusive minority population.
well again, I don't see where you ever trusted him in the first place. I've never seen you say anything positive abuot the guy.
as far as a government being too small: is that really a concern? isn't that a little like worrying an 800 pound man will one day become obsessed with maintaining a massive physique? or become anorexic? we have a 3 trillion dollar budget and are massively in debt. public education being eliminated is not high on our list of concerns.
It's strange, in the ron paul coaltion we have liberals, home schoolers, gun rights people, anti drug war people.
then there are other people who are very hard core porponents of those things but don't support him because he is pro life or anti war or something. as if hillary rodham clinton is going to do anything about the massive prison population or our myriad of overseas commitments.
it's like kicking kim kardashian out of bed because she is eating crackers
Post a Comment
<< Home